Demos save you dollars, time

[womble]

...cherry over the cake?...

Since you asked: cherry on the cake. "Over" would imply that the cherry wasn't touching the cake, for some reason

Respect for you (and all the other guys) daring to post in a second language. You all generally make a pretty good job of it.

[eniced73]

Actually not all cakes have icing! So he could be correct. If he put his cherries OVER his cake then it would be touching it. Anyhow the correct saying is "cherry on top". FYI

[womble]

Actually not all cakes have icing! So he could be correct. If he put his cherries OVER his cake then it would be touching it. Anyhow the correct saying is "cherry on top". FYI

Is English your first language?

[Zels77]

Wahhhh Waaaahhhhh ( sob ) waaahhhhh (sob ).

Burp !

All better now ;-)

This reply from a "senior member" makes my point for me and outlines where the CM series is headed: all-action, no substance and appealing to kids.

[Fizou]

I was starting to type a response.. but we should stop feeding this troll.

[Apocal]

So when an LMG hiding 400m from unbuttoned tank can hit the commander with a snap shot (frequently), I lose interest.

If the MG is hidden from the tank, what makes you think its a snap shot?

[gdbf01]

Great reply Glenn!

Points well made and taken on board. I grew up playing SL and then ASL, and I was STOKED when I discovered Battlefront, and blown away by CMBO and CMBB.

I'm not denying any of your valid points about how much work goes into making what is, by default, the ONLY game that makes a credible stab at being a strategy wargame (that isn't on a one-hex-equals-one-galaxy scale).

And it's for exactly this reason that I hold CM to THAT standard.

Tank commander vulnerability is one of several major issues with the game that alter its fundamental purpose - conducting a battle along historical lines.

My guess is that a good chunk of the blokes on this forum would be thrilled with having Zombie-driven T34's firing lazer-guided muffins at Jabba the Hut. I'm after a simulation of WWII infantry combat as it actually happened.

So when an LMG hiding 400m from unbuttoned tank can hit the commander with a snap shot (frequently), I lose interest.

I don't expect everything to be perfect, but I do expect the desire for real-world physics and historical accuracy to trump the quest for superior graphics, and flamethrowers.

Thanks again for your reply and happy hunting!

Oh, I think we ALL would like the physics to be better - in this and every other game. As they say, "In a perfect world... ." The trick is that we are trying to make a bunch of 1's and 0's behave like a 3D, real life entity. At some point, we'll probably get there, but again we keep bumping up against this damned technology curve. For sure there are inaccuracies and weaknesses, but as one other responder said (and I paraphrase), show me the game that IS perfect! I've not found it (and you've not suggested one yet), so I'm not sure it exists; much as we wish it did. What I see in BF though, is a strong desire to get as close as we can at this point in time, and (again) they are always pushing the envelope. One can hardly ask for more, and is (again) one of the big reasons I keep coming back to them. I've referred to another hobby I'm in where some developers are "less keen" to build in the best they can do, which leaves us users feeling somewhat cheated. There is one developer who absolutely refuses to build in anything except graphics (he leaves in backwards working switches, switches that don't work, advertising a particular component as being a functioning unit when in reality it's the default component simply dressed up to look like a more advanced component), engines that don't work properly; all of which have looooong ago been addressed by other developers (and the technology is freely available) and easily fixable. Yet this developer is the only one who is producing the types of things the majority of users want to use, so we have to "put up or shut up." I find that approach highly offensive, but certainly not uncommon in that hobby. One or two other developers in that field DO take the high road and make things as good as they can possibly be, given the current technology. Some still criticise their efforts as not being enough because this component doesn't do exactly what it should do in the real world (never mind that it makes no difference to the sim itself). So sometimes the developer can't win, but the observer is (IMO) being unfair because what he/she is asking for, simply can't be done. BF is in the category where they try their very best and are continually pushing the envelope. Do they have it all perfect? No chance. It's not for lack of trying though, and as others have observed, they come closer than anyone else out there (that I, and apparently many/most others) have done. When you look back at CMBO and its genre and compare its limitations with what we have in the CMX2 (and soon the CMX3 - likely another jump forward in a short space of time), I think you'd have to agree they haven't been sitting around with their collective thumbs up their derrieres; but continuing to learn and push the envelope. That's light years better than some developers (not found any in the wargaming genre, but they may be there) like I mentioned above who are simply interested in pushing out another product for the sake of making more $$ and not caring about the customer one bit. As I said, I am a "fanboy" of BF, but again, with good reason.

Now you did say one thing that I think (from my experience) is completely incorrect. "My guess is that a good chunk of the blokes on this forum would be thrilled with having Zombie-driven T34's firing lazer-guided muffins at Jabba the Hut." I find folks here are pretty discriminating. They know more about this stuff than I ever will, and I (and probably others too) actually was in the Infantry for a time (not in a war zone though). I read AAR's and drop noob questions all over the place here because I like tapping into the wealth of knowledge that is present here. Of course there are some people who may not "mind" the scenario you describe, but for some of us it's not that we blindly accept it, but maybe that we don't know any better. And of course there are those who are willing to delve into the simulation less so than others. There's nothing wrong with that. Each plays on their own level, and that's not a bad thing as I see it. As long as they don't start screaming at those who are bringing up specific issues (not simply wholesale, "this game is junk" statements) as being "too demanding", then that's ok with me. So no, I do disagree with you on that point I'm afraid.

I've seen a number of responses here that suggest "not feeding the troll". Generally I agree with such a policy, but respectfully I think also this is a good reminder of why we do this, why we buy and support BF in particular, and how far/how good we really do have it right now. If we need too many of these reminders, something is wrong; but I don't see many complaints (of a broad nature) come up here (a good thing!). So once in a while it's good (again, respectfully) to have to answer the question of "Why?" It serves a higher purpose .

Glenn

[LukeFF]

This reply from a "senior member" makes my point for me and outlines where the CM series is headed: all-action, no substance and appealing to kids.

You and superwoz would make a cute couple.

[Collingwood]

I think the demo is a great idea.

When I found out that CM games were "finally" available for OSX after having given up hope, I downloaded the CMBN demo. I played it for about a week, and couldn't believe I was having so much fun for FREE.

I bought the game because the demo showed how just how damned good it was. It was like directing my own WW2 movie every night. I have not bothered with a single CM demo ever since, I just buy the games as soon as they come. Sure they are not perfect, but for me they are more perfect than anything else out there and that's all we can hope for.

I enjoyed the comparisons to squad leader - I thought even just the first squad leader was the pinnacle of WW2 tactical wargaming when it came out.

I'm sure the demo has saved quite a few dollars for different folks who found CMx2 wasn't for them - we won't ever know how many because they didn't bother to gripe about it.

[cptcurt]

I have no complaints about BF or CM. My only concern is what the true system specs for CM are. What are the specs you are using when making the game. I always follow posts on the forums as to updates and patches. And I think that the responses from the company as for as keeping us up to date on problems and issues are fine with me.

[IntruderPl]

I completly DO agree with base words said in first post of this topic - demos save cash and frustration. Unfortunately I trusted BF too much after CMBO, CMAK etc and bought CM x2 title (all updated CMBN). After many other bugs I just ended loosing my battle by not being able to transport my critical mortars to another positions by truck. They just petmanently stuck with their icons half transparent (as embarking), trucks they were going to embark unable to undertake ANY order. All those units were stuck for many turns until destroyed.

Let's face the truth - the game might be WONDERFUL and has a great potential but is so bug infested it's just a matter of time when a person who spent his money for it will shoot his head instead of buying another title of CM series. Well, ofcourse there are those who don't mind obvious bugs ruining the gameplay... and I think this is the target for BF sales. Not those willing to spend their money on a polished product.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I completly DO agree with base words said in first post of this topic - demos save cash and frustration. Unfortunately I trusted BF too much after CMBO, CMAK etc and bought CM x2 title (all updated CMBN). After many other bugs I just ended loosing my battle by not being able to transport my critical mortars to another positions by truck. They just petmanently stuck with their icons half transparent (as embarking), trucks they were going to embark unable to undertake ANY order. All those units were stuck for many turns until destroyed.

Let's face the truth - the game might be WONDERFUL and has a great potential but is so bug infested it's just a matter of time when a person who spent his money for it will shoot his head instead of buying another title of CM series. Well, ofcourse there are those who don't mind obvious bugs ruining the gameplay... and I think this is the target for BF sales. Not those willing to spend their money on a polished product.

Wait,...CM is bad? Unpolished? How could I have had hundreds of hours of entertainment from all the titles over the last 13 years? I feel so dirty.

Guess several thousand wargamers love us some buggy software.

[IntruderPl]

Wait,...CM is bad? Unpolished? How could I have had hundreds of hours of entertainment from all the titles over the last 13 years?

Well yes my friend. I had lots of fun playing CMx1 for years also. I got burnt with CMSF and even after dozen of patches I never returned to that title. Now after several years I bought CMBN and... it still has lots of problems. As LOS/LOF issues might be questionable - trees, leaves, bushes, dirty binoculars, butterfies inheriting view... things like ones I mentioned in different topics can't be called other than bugs... in a polished game?

I just had a team of mortar bearers stuck for life 15m from the truck they were supposed to board... and the truck also stopped responding any orders. On the same battle I had a crazy guy who decided to abandon his squad and instead of boarding a truck like the rest of it he ran over 300m in random direction for several turns while both truck and his team stopped to respond to any order. They returned under my command after the guy on his way to China met an enemy platoon who ended his tourism with 7.62 bullets.

Yes, my friend, that is a buggy game. It has a lot of potential but playing it is more like walking the minefield - don't step there, don't do this, don't do that or the game will bug your truck, tank, AT gun or else. This looks like an alpha or beta - not the final product.

I don't need no penetration decals on tanks in Red thunder nor decapitations in Pacific front. I want smooth, controlable and logical behaviour of my units. Even if they were going to look like CMx1. I didn't buy the game to always hear that I should get used to radicilous things, "I shouldn't try to board the truck near obstacles or units might turn into stone" or "I shouldn't expect my german veteran ATG dug in forest will spot a jeep speeding in the open 400m away while being spotted by it's regular driver". Exmaples are many. If that's "polished" than I don't want to know what "rusty" is.

[LukeFF]

How cute.

[Fizou]

If that's "polished" than I don't want to know what "rusty" is.

Are you sure you are playing version 2.12? Sure there are still a few bugs in the game (what game with this complexity is totaly bug free?). Can they be annoying? Yes. Do they show up in every battle and ruin the overall experince? Not by a long shot.

Are they continously being squashed? Well yes. And the true beauty of it all, that the improvents of future familys/modules/patches etc. are all able to be backportet to previous games.

To me you are exaggerating in your post and you chose to focus on the few instanses where bugs appear. My suggestion to you would be to play CMx1 and come back in six months to check what bugs have been squashed by then.

[A Canadian Cat]

I bought CMBN and... it still has lots of problems. As LOS/LOF issues might be questionable - trees, leaves, bushes, dirty binoculars, butterfies inheriting view... things like ones I mentioned in different topics can't be called other than bugs... in a polished game?

Spotting is going to be an issue that causes disagreement for sure. The method is so much better in CM2 than it was in CM1. Borg spotting in CM1: come on you have to admit that was pretty bad. The thing is the spotting in CM2 is very different and sometimes things happen that you say "no way" but in reality not everyone spots perfectly, not everyone spots things at the same time, not everyone is looking in the right direction a the right moment. People get surprised. When those odd things happen just chalk them up to surprise.

BFC fixes problems when they are found. Finding them is tricky because you have to do some work to sus out where the issue is. BTW just saying that some jeep some where sometime spotted and AT gun when you did not think it should does not count as a bug report.

So many changes have been made around spotting. AT guns are harder to spot, tanks see much less than they used to etc. etc.

I just had a team of mortar bearers stuck for life 15m from the truck they were supposed to board... and the truck also stopped responding any orders. On the same battle I had a crazy guy who decided to abandon his squad and instead of boarding a truck like the rest of it he ran over 300m in random direction for several turns while both truck and his team stopped to respond to any order.

So, this is clearly a bug. And I can tell you that it is one that I have not seen for a long time. In the 1.x version there were issues with team members wondering and mostly that was only annoying. But as you note when they were supposed to load into a truck it went from annoying to bad. I can tell you this one has been fixed. I have not see it in a long long time.

Are you sure you are playing version 2.12? Sure there are still a few bugs in the game (what game with this complexity is totaly bug free?). Can they be annoying? Yes. Do they show up in every battle and ruin the overall experince? Not by a long shot.

This has been my experience too. Even the bug mentioned did not happen frequently and I moved people by truck and half track often.

[A Canadian Cat]

How cute.

LOL yeah his tone was a bit combative and silly but I'll give him chance and see if he really wants to learn how to play the game.

[IntruderPl]

Learn how to play the game? Are you joking?

I've been playing CMx1 when some of You were still watching Cartoon Network. I've been reporting pre-release bugs on CMx2 when some of You didn't know there's anything like CM serie. After some dozen of patches I've quit playing CMSF and got back to CMBB, CMAK since the game was... still an early alpha. My review was published on 20 august 2007 on IDG, PC World, Gamestar etc. - long long before some of You even knew about CM existance. My first contact with CMBN was at 1.10 and with it's bugs i left it to grow up untill 2.12 and what do I see after so many YEARS and money spent on 2.0? Years... and you are telling me "come back in six months"?? Where's my money I spent on this alpha? Don't tell me to wait "six months". Six months times.. what? Would you be satisfied if you'd buy a car, payed for it and the dealer tells you "come back in 3 years" (the time most cars get rid of their childhood problems)?? And that's the car you really love, you wish to have and want to drive now since it's put into sales? Don't be silly. I'm not attacking Bf nor anyone. I remember having a great contact with Sofia, Steve and programmers from BF in CMSF days. It's not serious devs introduce new modules still based on weak fundaments. I'm not talking the LOS/LOF (as I underlined it earlier). I'm talking about silly things reported many times and still happening after so many reports and patches.

If CM's your religion defend it no matter if it's right, but for me it's a game and I want it to keep to it's own rules detailed in the manual. If it says "german veteran AT guns dug in forests won't see a regular US jeep speeding (fast) in the open at 400m but get spotted by it's driver" I'd say - ok, I should have keep it in mind. But why my whole team and truck gets stuck for ever when embarking or one of my squad members runs toward better future in China and blocks both the truck and this team embarked on that? Where's the logic? what if in the next patch you won't be able to fire a tank gun at all? I know - some of You will say : "The engine is what it is and people who critisize it need to learn how to play the game". That's ridiculous.

Anyone has any objections? Devs, CM player super-expert players? As always - I'm ready to sent saves to show the problems. Noone ever asked. Just say a word, check the savegames and situations and tell me I'm wrong or else stop denying the facts. The space underneath the carpet is full of it.

[gdbf01]

@IntruderPI - I guess I'm a little confused. You say,

I got burnt with CMSF and even after dozen of patches I never returned to that title. Now after several years I bought CMBN...

We have a saying in North America that goes, "Once burned, twice shy." And another one, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you." The first one applies in that if you felt burned on CMFS after many updates, why would you shell out more hard earned cash for CMBN? If it were me, I think I'd be saying to myself that Battlefront had lost their touch and so I'm not going to throw still more money at them for a bad product.

The second saying is related to the first. If you felt like you were cheated (my words, but it sounds like this is how you felt) with CMFS, then that's Battlefront's bad (shame on them). However, if knowing they were putting out a "bad" product (as you seem to feel), you then go and buy yet another product that is part of the same line up (CM), then put out still more money purchasing the updates as you mentioned in your original post, then I don't think you can point fingers at Battlefront. You willingly and knowingly paid yet more money for what is, in your estimation, an inferior product. That's not something you can blame BF for, IMO.

Lastly, you say you aren't attacking BF. Well, perhaps not (jury is still out on that one... maybe), but you are certainly using an inflammatory tone, and even more so with those of us who choose to present the other side of the argument. You present many problems and bugs, but you: a) don't mention games/developers who have solved the problems you claim still exist, and aren't offering up any solutions yourself to these problems. It's very easy to sit back and take pot shots at people (particularly on the internet), but it's a whole other story to offer solutions or alternatives in a helpful and constructive manner.

I guess I am left wondering why, if the game is that bad, you would even still be inhabiting the forums here? I think if I were that discouraged with a game, and there were no solutions in sight (to my satisfaction), I would have simply moved on to bigger and better things. Assuming bigger and better actually exist. So far no one has shown me that it does.

Glenn

[Fizou]

Well said Glenn. And I guess it is:

And another one, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[gdbf01]

@Fizou - <LMAO> Thanks!! I KNEW I was going to screw that up . I feel just like George W (Bush) now . Appreciate the fix, and you are quite correct of course.

[womble]

As always - I'm ready to sent saves to show the problems. Noone ever asked. Just say a word, check the savegames and situations and tell me I'm wrong or else stop denying the facts. The space underneath the carpet is full of it.

Well, personally, I can't be bothered to touch your offer with Emrys's, because your attitude is also so "full of it" that finding the actual problems within the hysteria seems unlikely. I don't get enough time to play the damn game without pandering to your unrealsitic expectations. I doubt BFC would put it quite the same way, but your approach isn't going to persuade them anyone but you actually has a problem.

[A Canadian Cat]

Learn how to play the game?

Perhaps I did not phrase that well. Interesting that of all the things posted that is the part of these posts you want to respond to? OK clearly you are just trolling (you might be an old troll and you might be an experienced troll but still a troll) and I will no longer bother.

Well, personally, I can't be bothered to touch your offer with Emrys's, because your attitude is also so "full of it" that finding the actual problems within the hysteria seems unlikely.

Yeah, I should followed @LukeFF instinct.

[sburke]

Learn how to play the game? Are you joking?

I've been playing CMx1 when some of You were still watching Cartoon Network.

What's wrong with the Cartoon Network?

I've been reporting pre-release bugs on CMx2 when some of You didn't know there's anything like CM serie. After some dozen of patches I've quit playing CMSF and got back to CMBB, CMAK since the game was... still an early alpha. My review was published on 20 august 2007 on IDG, PC World, Gamestar etc. - long long before some of You even knew about CM existance.

Big whoop, are we supposed to be impressed? Length of time means nothing other than maybe after all these years you still don't know how to play the game. There is another that seemed to throw around his "credentials" like you and look how far that got him. Hopefully your writing skills while doing those reviews were better than what you have displayed here.

Anyone has any objections? Devs, CM player super-expert players? As always - I'm ready to sent saves to show the problems. Noone ever asked. Just say a word, check the savegames and situations and tell me I'm wrong or else stop denying the facts. The space underneath the carpet is full of it.

You've been on the CMFI forum a whole couple of days ranting about how bad the game has been. Assuming you are Brett from the IDG review, you have been pretty much doing the same thing for 7 years. You are entitled to your opinion. It just so happens that the number of folks who share you opinion here is maybe 3. And in a word just in case you haven't understood yet - NO not interested in your saves. You've wasted enough of our time. If you are so convinced the game sucks etc etc just go away and play something else. Or watch the cartoon network.

[IntruderPl]

Well as in many cases on this forum with "exceptionally skilled senior members" - lots of empty talking, denying and that's about it.

"The game does not have bugs and if there are any let's not talk about it pretending BF made CM flawless".

Looks more like a fanatic way of thinking. Nothing to discuss with. About IDG review - no, I'm not Brett IDG has it's locations in many countries around the world but just as in CMs case - it's better only to see one corner of the room, isn't it?

I feel like talking to a wooden wall reading posts above. No playing skill is involved in units getting stuck nor single soldiers doing actions they were not ordered to do while rest of their team follows commands. The only skill it takes is to admit there are bugs and get rid of them. I think it requires less than pretending there are none left.

And about the solutions - I gave some on different topics but can't give none on bugs. Note I didn't call a bug the situation when my crack panther A was completly destroyed by a single shot from stewart into a lower side hull. No damages on the damage list, noone died but the tank was destroyed, not knocked out. Maybe that's possible, maybe it's a bad luck. I didn't call it bug when my PzIV was hit 3 times by M4/75mm into a turret at 250m and went on like nothing happened. Nor my unbuttoned tank commander survived a top-down turret hit with 60mm mortar. Miracles happen. But things I mentioned aren't good/bad possible luck. Those ARE bugs. Maybe a rare ones but still present.

Oh, and why I spent some more money at 2.0 after months after playing buggy 1.10? Because I believe(d) BF, because in fact many things (like MGs, tank spotting etc.) DID change for better. But that doesn't mean things are all great.