Wiggum15

There is NO wargame that makes me 100% happy, they all have flaws.
But...i have a special love for CM and cant accept the fact that it has been in a standstill since 8 years now.
CMx1 was great, i remember playing the tutorial mission the first time and i was blown away. CMAK and OFP made me a wargame fan and got me interested in the military (iam active infantry soldier since many years) !
I bought CMx2 and was disappointed but saw the potential...and now 8 years later and its still the same flaws and shortcomings...
So many "new" games and all just seem like a texture mod with some new units.

And here i disagree.
The game has by no means "significantly" evolved since 2007.
All we got are bug fixes, some additional but minor features and balance tweaks.

After all this discussion here i did a test:
I showed a friend (ordinary hobby gamer, 33 years old) SF and then CMBS (he first thought CMBS was a mod for SF or the other way around). I asked him what he thinks how many "updates" are between both titles.
His answer was "maybe 2 or three".
Then i told him that between both games are no less then 8 years...he was like WTF really...?!

- 8 years and we still have no infantry formations (hail to the conga line)
- 8 years and the map still floats in nirvana
- 8 years and vehicles still dont know what a road is
- 8 years and the TacAI is still as bad
- 8 years and we still do not have SOP's for the action phase
- 8 years and we still have the same graphic glitches
- 8 years and still no flares or NV mode for night combat
- 8 years and the enemy halftruck still sits there while my mortars shoot at it till its finally hit
- 8 years and the UI is still the same (which is not a good thing)
- 8 years and still no TCP/IP Multiplayer
...

Mores the pity eh!
How does it manage to hit stuff when the optics are disabled. The option to target is greyed out, and I thought that optics included all optics including backup gun sights. My guess is that because the AI use a different algorithm and constantly have a circular target around them, so it probable ignores this.
 
It is a legacy problem that goes back further than CMBN Vanir, in CMSF it happened once with an M1 that PurpHeart had which I hit with air fires a hundred times. I only found out until the end that it had its subsystems knocked out because it was still there and manned at end game.

@ c3k

Oh come on.
You argument is the same as sburke's.

- BFC needs more time
Really ?!
8 Years should be enough to work on the basic CMx2 flaws and shortcomings and add game changing new features.

- BFC has no money
If i look at what some Indie Devs are pulling of at the moment i cant let that count

- BFC is a small team
There is another small wargame developing team from Kharkov, Ukraine...just look at what they are able to do !

- The game is the best tactical battle simulator anyway
Actually i would say no it is not. And i think sooner then later BFC will realize that they got much to comfortable in their little warm niche.

@ c3k

Oh come on.
You argument is the same as sburke's.

- BFC needs more time
Really ?!
8 Years should be enough to work on the basic CMx2 flaws and shortcomings and add game changing new features.

- BFC has no money
If i look at what some Indie Devs are pulling of at the moment i cant let that count

- BFC is a small team
There is another small wargame developing team from Kharkov, Ukraine...just look at what they are able to do !

- The game is the best tactical battle simulator anyway
Actually i would say no it is not. And i think sooner then later BFC will realize that they got much to comfortable in their little warm niche.

I'm at home today. Tomorrow, I leave on a 6 day trip. My pool pump blew a 2" line, putting about 350 cubic feet of water into my shed/pool house. My 20 year old is almost done with his 3rd complete automobile rebuild, but wants some help wiring some O2 sensors. My neighbor invited me to a cookout. One of my gaming rigs has some leftover antivirus files and the antivirus gurus would like me to run some diagnostics and post them. A tree fell on my roof last week and there are some finishing touches needed to repair/replace the shingles and the drip-edge. Today is a weight-lifting day. My chainsaw carb is acting up and needs a bit of a tune. An outdoor power line has an intermittent hot-to-ground fault; I need to pull a new line (rodent damage inside the conduit?). I still need to clean two of my firearms after a fun day shooting yesterday (I -did- clean all the others). I need to run a backup to an external drive on one of my computers; routine, but can't get lazy. My generator was put away after a power outage without running the carb dry (wife and younger boy were at home); I need to run it dry so it won't gum up. My kids' computer is fairly screaming for a new cpu/mobo; I've got it picked out (i5/z97), and I just need to buy it on sale today. I've already gone to the outdoor big-box store to buy replacement soccer-mom chairs and re-up on some ammo. I need to fill up two of my 5-gallon gasoline containers. My wife wants to have a bottle of wine and watch a movie with me tonight. The belt tensioner bearing on the '03 Honda Pilot is squealing and needs to be replaced. There's a pbem waiting for my attention.
 
 
According to the Wiggum15 school of thought, I should just get it all done.
 
If I say today's a pretty damn good day and nothing on that list is =really= needed, I'm a fanboy.
 
 
Just sayin' that some things just can't be squeezed into a day. I think Wiggum would be surprised to know that BFC would probably LIKE to get everything on his list done, but they only have so many man-hours available.
 
As for me, well, I got the 2" line fixed already. Next, I'm going to crawl under a car and wire up some O2 sensors. ....After I return my pbem turn.  And I don't know what I'll do after that.

Could not agree more.

Maybe these are "unsupported proclamation"...as "unsupported" as your assumption that it was tons of work to include these "features".

Actually i like the game, but dont like the lack of progress and BFC's business model...ever considered that ?!
For you, everyone who does not love the game and says "WOW, GREAT" to everything BFC does and releases is a sad troll who does have no clue how much hard work (should we all pity BFC...) they put into these games.
Someone who loves a company and cheers everything they do is usually called a fanboy, now i dont say you are one but many here at the forum are very very close...

I most likely will buy the Bulge game anyway...why you ask ?
Because i dont have to care about 55$, simple as that.
If they would release a massive improved CMx3 engine i would pay 150$ for it !
I want BFC to move forward, you want them to sit in a corner selling the same game with a new varnishing forever.

Iam ranting about CMx2 since 2007 and i will carry on because to improve they need guys like me who DONT cheer them like 14 year old cheerleaders.
Oh, and i know they dont care about the forum "troll" with his "rants"...but they are ignoring their cheerleaders too so i can live with that.

Maybe these are "unsupported proclamation"...as "unsupported" as your assumption that it was tons of work to include these "features".

Actually i like the game, but dont like the lack of progress and BFC's business model...ever considered that ?!
For you, everyone who does not love the game and says "WOW, GREAT" to everything BFC does and releases is a sad troll who does have no clue how much hard work (should we all pity BFC...) they put into these games.
Someone who loves a company and cheers everything they do is usually called a fanboy, now i dont say you are one but many here at the forum are very very close...

I most likely will buy the Bulge game anyway...why you ask ?
Because i dont have to care about 55$, simple as that.
If they would release a massive improved CMx3 engine i would pay 150$ for it !
I want BFC to move forward, you want them to sit in a corner selling the same game with a new varnishing forever.

Iam ranting about CMx2 since 2007 and i will carry on because to improve they need guys like me who DONT cheer them like 14 year old cheerleaders.
Oh, and i know they dont care about the forum "troll" with his "rants"...but they are ignoring their cheerleaders too so i can live with that.

Off topic? Maybe. But I've just copied Wiggum's coding and, using my beta status, I sent it to Charles. I expect we'll be hearing the world-wide echo as Charles slaps his forehead and yells "D'OH!" I wonder how he'll feel knowing he's wasted all the time before now?
 

Yeah, with the current badly optimized engine my "vaunted computer would fry or more likely just simply hang".
Stop telling everybody about those "magic" AI process thats soooooo demanding on your CPU and all those bullets pew...luckely i can play ArmA3 with high setting with 40 FPS...
If i shoot mortar rounds at a enemy APC it will just sit there as long as it is not hit...although there are impacts in 25m distance...
Vehicles are to stupid to use roads and pathfinding is horrible...is that also part of the "magic" AI process thats so demanding ?

I know and i was one of those guys who screamed for FOW trenches. But what we got is way worse...the current representation of trenches and foxholes as ugly "units" is awful.
A workaround due to engine limitations...nothing more.
 
- drones
Invisible, maybe just a F16 with another sound file, i cant be to much work if you have aircraft fire already modeled ingame

- mgs fire random numbers of bullets now
Believe it or not, for me thats just a minor change, something a coder does in one or two hours.

- precision artillery
is just a shell without to much dispersion, i doubt that this was much work...

- anti air craft fire
Its just something firing into the air, planes are invisible so it could be as simple as a randomly generated number. If that number is >x then the plane was hit...minor change

- editor improvements
Using the editor is still a pain in the a**. But yeah at least they tried to improve it a bit. But still its not user friendly or straightforward.

- mg fire being more effective in general but most speficially against infantry.
Again, just change a few variables, do some testing and you have it...a minor improvement that is a basic thing to include into a patch

- In door firing of rocket weapons
Again, most likely just a small code change and some testing, minor change
Like:
If _weapon == "RPG" then {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = false} else {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = true}

- flame weapons
Only avaiable in RT, this was already present in CMx1

The Bulge game will use the same germans (+ a few new tanks and textures) like we already have in CMBN and CMRT.
The Bulge game will use the "flat" snow tile and weather "graphic effects" from CMFI
The Bulge game will use the US forces we already have in CMBN and its addons (+ a few new tanks and textures)
The Bulge game will have the flame weapons and tank riders from RT
The Bulge game will have mostly the same TO&E as CMBN with some additions and changes
The Bulge game will have new scenarios

Please tell me, from your perspective, what the big "new" feature of the next full price CMx2 game ?

Reusing old models is ok.
But what BFC does is just "cheap".
Just look at the terrain, its the same for CMBN, CMRT and CMBS.
The infantry movement is the same since 2007 and never got improved.
They recycled the Germans from CMBN in RT (1944 again) and will do it in the bulge game (1944 again).
The winter terrain will be the same as in CMFI...
And don't get me started about the lack of new features or engine improvements since 2007.
BFC sells texture and scenario packs as full price games, some think that's acceptable some don't.

Oy, I'll just ignore that - like I do Wiggum...
 

Yes, they tend to be. Over time they add up and have made lots of progress.  As long as they are improving things that's good.
 
 
Indeed and even Steve has gone on record as saying he wants to do that.  If you look at BFC's track record they tend to make improvements concentrated in one area with a few improvements in other areas - at each step.  A major design change to the UI will need a bit more of an all or nothing approach.  Often if you create a new UI design it will not fit well along side the older one so you cannot do it bit by bit sadly.  I think we are going to have to be patient on this one.
 
 
I'm not so sure about this.  The scripted AI does some things quite well actually and it appears to be their design philosophy. The kind of thing you are talking about is not really compatible with a scripted AI.
 

I am not sure what you are talking about here.  Of course my big problem with campaigns is the are not playable by PBEM so I spend nearly no time with them so that could be why I'm not getting it.   Can you elaborate.
 

Yuck, this has been discussed before lots and I really do no think that will ever happen. 1) those maps sucked - really sucked 2) random selection of prepared maps works really well. I honestly do not see why any one would want randomly generated maps now.  Once you have a big enough pool of maps, random selection is just so much better.

Wiggum has a point. From game to game Battlefront's improvements are very conservative. The game does indeed need better UI and strategic AI with at least some basic reaction patterns, not just pre-set triggers. Doing that shouldn't break BF's bank, especially now that they've polished gameplay mechanics to a nearly perfect condition (as gameplay mechanics is what I see changed the most since CMSF and through all those.. ugh... 'standalone' WW2 titles - while the rest of the game barely got touched). Making strategic AI reactive at least in some primitive ways (like trying to retake back lost victory locations... perhaps based on % of forces available) would go a long way towards improving otherwise dull QB.
 
Also while mechanically it's the deepest wargame it sorely misses the part that makes less complex wargames stand out and would make CM series even greater - strategic layer instead - or better - in addition to seldom-branching campaigns we have now.
 
Randomly generated maps are also a big thing, no? Considering iirc CM1x games had those

I would Say that 90% of CMBS comes from SF and 90% of all other WW2 titles comes from CMBN... It's called recycling old stuff for a new full price game.

AND WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD NOT DO THAT.

Lets see, I have a model right here I can adjust and it might take 20 hours, No it is much better to start from scratch and spend 200 hours on it.

Way to show us all how intelligent you are.

No one is going to create anything from scratch when they can make adjustments to previous work that can be reused.

What world do you come from

... And that's my whole point.
You talk about how CM is "continuing to develop" but I and many others don't see that.
CM is in a standstill since 2007.
They fixed bugs and added minor features but the big issues and shortcomings are still there...just look at the infantry movement !
Or the awful "floating in nirvana" map.
8 years and still, CMBS feels like the 2007 SF just with a 55$ texture mod.

So You agree worth me that many things did not change since SF ?
You agree with me that there are tons of things that should be addressed since 2007 like graphic issues, the infantry movement, vehicle pathfinding ?

Will you spent another 55$ on the next texture and TO&E pack with the same old basic issues ?

If you ask me, these are mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like a new infantry movement system, SOPs, UI overhaul, a better editor, smaller action spots a reworked building and cover system, waypoints and more triggers for the AI, MOUT commands, better target arcs, more self preservation for the AI, overhauled tax Ai...

If you ask me, these are mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like a new infantry movement system, SOPs, UI overhaul, a better editor, smaller action spots a reworked building and cover system, waypoints and more triggers for the AI, MOUT commands, better target arcs, more self preservation for the AI, overhauled tax Ai...

I would Say that 90% of CMBS comes from SF and 90% of all other WW2 titles comes from CMBN... It's called recycling old stuff for a new full price game.

So You agree worth me that many things did not change since SF ?
You agree with me that there are tons of things that should be addressed since 2007 like graphic issues, the infantry movement, vehicle pathfinding ?

Will you spent another 55$ on the next texture and TO&E pack with the same old basic issues ?

The "just don't buy it" argument is just bad. That's no valid point.

... And that's my whole point.
You talk about how CM is "continuing to develop" but I and many others don't see that.
CM is in a standstill since 2007.
They fixed bugs and added minor features but the big issues and shortcomings are still there...just look at the infantry movement !
Or the awful "floating in nirvana" map.
8 years and still, CMBS feels like the 2007 SF just with a 55$ texture mod.

... And that's my whole point.
You talk about how CM is "continuing to develop" but I and many others don't see that.
CM is in a standstill since 2007.
They fixed bugs and added minor features but the big issues and shortcomings are still there...just look at the infantry movement !
Or the awful "floating in nirvana" map.
8 years and still, CMBS feels like the 2007 SF just with a 55$ texture mod.