Demo Feedback

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, Andy_101 said:

 

 

I was under the impression that these issues would be fixed with the updated patch and that SF2 was running with said updated patch ?  What gives ?

The behavior of men, especially under fire, IS greatly improved. It's probably not perfect in every combination of assault, under fire, in cover, under bombardment, etc....   But it's worlds better than it was.  The behavior of units in a small arms firefight in cover (a building for instance) and also under artillery attack - not bolting into the open to be mowed down - those things are much better.

[A Canadian Cat]

15 hours ago, Ultradave said:

17 hours ago, Andy_101 said:

I was under the impression that these issues would be fixed with the updated patch and that SF2 was running with said updated patch ?  What gives ?

The behavior of men, especially under fire, IS greatly improved. It's probably not perfect in every combination of assault, under fire, in cover, under bombardment, etc....   But it's worlds better than it was.  The behavior of units in a small arms firefight in cover (a building for instance) and also under artillery attack - not bolting into the open to be mowed down - those things are much better.

What @Ultradave said. This is probably a good opportunity to remind everyone to set their expectations correctly. The fixes regarding troops under fire are to fix the side effects that basically caused cowardice to lead to slaughter. Troops will *not* suddenly read your mind and make the right choice (according to you) every time. They *will* disappoint you and do stuff that you swear you would not do in their situation ($10 says most of us would do worse in RL ; - ) The fix is to tamp down the heightened self preservation that lead to feeling from nearly all fire fights. The third effect of that was to expose more troops to the risk of feeling - getting caught in the open way more often than they should.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You using a phone Ian?  I fear your 'Flees' became 'Feels'. 

[sburke]

16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You using a phone Ian?  I fear your 'Flees' became 'Feels'. 

No his pixeltruppen have been working on getting in touch with their emotional side.  Next up they will be doing mindfulness. 

[Ch53dVet]

Well, I hope this demo is the rough cut version of what is to come.

One of the things that I'm having a problem with in the "Breaking the bank" scenario is when enemy troops surrender inside their buildings.

First, the building no longer remains transparent, thus, hiding the surrendered troops from sight, however, the icon for the enemy troops is visible above the building showing that they're insight of your troops, the only way you know that they have surrendered is by moving the camera inside the building.

Secondly, sending your troops inside the building to take custody of them results with the surrendered never giving up, (yes, my troops are standing next to them and facing them) the only way to remove them from the board is to send in more troops to clean out the hidden enemy troops, which, are always present in the adjacent buildings. Once, they are defeated, then and only then, will the surrendered be removed from the map.

One other thing I'm having a problem with in the demo, itself, is with the sniper units inside the "Training" and the "Breaking the Bank" missions.

First, Training scenario, Sniper team of 3 men are carrying 40 rounds of 50 cal.Mk211, yet, they are carrying (1) M4, (1) M4/203 and (1) M110

Second, All US Sniper teams in this demo, especially, in the "Breaking the bank" scenario are nothing like the sniper team's of today or yesterday. For instance, when a sniper team spots an enemy target the marksman takes the first shot, then, his spotter opens up with his M4, or, grenade launcher, on full auto, thusly, exposing their position for an onslaught of enemy fire and, usually, wipes them out or sends them fleeing.

[sburke]

The surrendering items are not a rough cut. That is how it works in all 4.0 titles. It is not the best solution, but I think the best of available options. That they won’t complete the surrender gives you intel on possible other units. Not very sporting but I just write it off that they blabbed to my guys to save their skins. And you do need to do the clearing otherwise you turn your back and those guys will end up attacking you. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This is why we need Buratino in CMSF2, with Buratino there won't be any survivors.....Simple & effective fix. 

[A Canadian Cat]

9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You using a phone Ian?  I fear your 'Flees' became 'Feels'. 

Oh man. Yep. I'll just leave it since it's pretty funny and anyone confused will be straightened out after reading your post.

[RexSaur]

Well, the issues with the surrendering troops definiitely are annoying. How many times have I ordered my troops to target the enemy to find out they surrendered already. It is more annoying than adding any substantial gameplay.

If there would be any feedback through the GUI it would be a lot better experience.

[Michael Emrys]

22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You using a phone Ian?  I fear your 'Flees' became 'Feels'. 

His 'led' also turned into 'lead', which in this context is just plain wrong. A lot of people make this mistake and normally I don't bother to mention it, but as long as we are clearing the air tonight, I thought I might as well toss in my 2¢ worth. End of rant.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

On 11/21/2018 at 11:27 AM, IanL said:

caused cowardice to lead to slaughter

 

21 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

His 'led' also turned into 'lead', which in this context is just plain wrong. 

? I think that lead is correct here. Writing: "caused cowardice to led to slaughter" has the tense wrong. I could have said "cowardice that would have led to slaughter"

[sburke]

I think the volume of lead led to slaughter. 

Lead poisoning.......

Edited November 23, 2018 by sburke

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

? I think that lead is correct here. Writing: "caused cowardice to led to slaughter" has the tense wrong. I could have said "cowardice that would have led to slaughter"

Ouch! You are right. I can't think of what caused me to think you were writing in the past tense. So many people do... Sorry.

Michael

[Apache]

Can't for the life of me find the 'Saved Game' folder with the demo?  Is there one?  With the full Blitzkrieg game they are in Applications > CMFB > Game Files > Saved Games.  This is on a MBP running Mojave.  With the CMSF 2 demo the games save OK but no saved game folder to be found.  Not a problem if it's by design with the demo but I prefer to know where files are going.  If I search the saved game name in Finder for CMFB it brings the files up.  With CMSF 2 Demo, nothing.  Even using 'Easy Find' and 'File Finder' apps doesn't help?

[RexSaur]

It is in the demo's installation folder. Here is my example: C:\Games\Combat Mission Shock Force 2 Demo\Game Files\Saved Games

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, Apache said:

Can't for the life of me find the 'Saved Game' folder with the demo?  Is there one?  With the full Blitzkrieg game they are in Applications > CMFB > Game Files > Saved Games.  This is on a MBP running Mojave.  With the CMSF 2 demo the games save OK but no saved game folder to be found.  Not a problem if it's by design with the demo but I prefer to know where files are going.  If I search the saved game name in Finder for CMFB it brings the files up.  With CMSF 2 Demo, nothing.  Even using 'Easy Find' and 'File Finder' apps doesn't help?

I answered this in a different post but on a Mac FOR THE DEMO, the saved games you have to show contents of the .app, then Resources/Game Files/Saved Games. Old style like BN. When the game is released it will have a separate Game Files directory at the top level, just like FB.

[Andy_101]

On 11/21/2018 at 4:27 PM, IanL said:

What @Ultradave said. This is probably a good opportunity to remind everyone to set their expectations correctly. The fixes regarding troops under fire are to fix the side effects that basically caused cowardice to lead to slaughter. Troops will *not* suddenly read your mind and make the right choice (according to you) every time. They *will* disappoint you and do stuff that you swear you would not do in their situation ($10 says most of us would do worse in RL ; - ) The fix is to tamp down the heightened self preservation that lead to feeling from nearly all fire fights. The third effect of that was to expose more troops to the risk of feeling - getting caught in the open way more often than they should.

 

Hi Ian. Thanks for the response.  I am obviously not expecting troops to magically "read my mind" (although that would be pretty cool!).  But it is frustrating when you order them into a building and they split and enter through different doors and therefore expose themselves to the enemy.  It's seems like it should be such a simple fix but I'm obviously no computer game programmer so what do I know?  

 

Of course I can imagine troops making stupid decisions like this, but is that really part of the game mechanics or is it a bit of a bug?  

 

Much love

 

A.  

[A Canadian Cat]

4 hours ago, Andy_101 said:

Of course I can imagine troops making stupid decisions like this, but is that really part of the game mechanics or is it a bit of a bug?  

Oh that read your mind thing was not directed at you really. I was exaggerating. It would be cool  though. It was more of a response to the feeling that I get sometimes that people have expectations that don't match reality.

As for the squads separating and using two doors. You can call it a bug. It sure feels like one. The thing is there are limits on what can be done. We have to recognize these limits and plan accordingly. So in this case I would try to remember not to issue a move order for the combined squad and instead split them and have one team enter directly and the other pause outside the door for 10 or 15 s. That should give the first team time to be done entering and then the second team will choose to go through the same door since it will no longer be obstructed. For a risky entry it is worthwhile doing that. If there are not likely to be enemy troops around don't bother.

 

[Wicky]

Speed of movement order could be a contributing factor - I've noticed of late  a few players in youtube vids and screenshots using 'fast' order for everything. 

It could cause adverse effects when entering buildings with AI thinking the urgency in gaining entry gives precedence over everything else, and that door round the corner will help get everyone in in the shortest time.  Hopefully folk are clicking a waypoint immediately in front of the door they want to enter rather than just plonking it directly in the building in a long bound and hoping the pixeltroopen will infer precisely what was in the player's mind.

PS Brit troops should queue come what may as it's our national sport....

[Apache]

 

17 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I answered this in a different post but on a Mac FOR THE DEMO, the saved games you have to show contents of the .app, then Resources/Game Files/Saved Games. Old style like BN. When the game is released it will have a separate Game Files directory at the top level, just like FB.

Hi.  Yes you did.  Thanks for your time with re-installing to check. Thought I'd messed up the install so posted here as it was CMSF 2 (actually though, as you explain, different build type).  Now, just need to find a way to get Marders to use their Milans against armour targets instead of using their main gun!  Had four crest a ridge to test.  Not one fired the Milan.  Seem to remember something similar with SF but can't recall if I had to do something (open up command?) to get them to use it.  Not a problem with Bradleys.  And jeez do I prefer US forces with Javelins over German squads with 'fausts! LOL

IIRC, target light was a command you could also use for Marders etc to suppress a building while friendlies were assaulting it, I can't recall if they would actually cease fire where friendlies were close to the target, or just take special care to avoid hitting them.  With SF2 they keep firing.  But this may be a failing memory issue.

Couple of issues with Passage to Wilcox (unless it's a demo issue and / or I'm reading wrong or misunderstanding):

The briefing refers to OBJ 1.  Nowhere on the maps do I see an OBJ 1?  Seizing OBJ 1 seems pretty important, but what / where is it?

Briefing also refers to an aerial photo, click to see, but there's nothing there and nothing to click?  Is something missing or is the briefing wrong?

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Apache

[Vet 0369]

10 hours ago, Apache said:

.

Couple of issues with Passage to Wilcox (unless it's a demo issue and / or I'm reading wrong or misunderstanding):

The briefing refers to OBJ 1.  Nowhere on the maps do I see an OBJ 1?  Seizing OBJ 1 seems pretty important, but what / where is it?

Briefing also refers to an aerial photo, click to see, but there's nothing there and nothing to click?  Is something missing or is the briefing wrong?

 

 

 

I asked basically the same question earlier in this thread some time ago. I never received an answer, but I'm assuming that "OBJ1" is the whole of Wilcox, and that the reference to an photo is for "local color" only.

Another brain twister is in "Day at the Beach." The scenario starts with a platoon of Marine Combat Engineers and Forward Observer team on the beach. I haven't been able to determine why they are there. In my estimation, the only time we'd have Engineers on the beach would to clear obsticles and mines. As a former Marine, I'd expect the initial landing party to be Force Recon to scout out and identify enemy positions. They could also call in initial fire missions if necessary, so the FO team is unnecessary too. Initial setup is pretty much a "head scratcher" for me.

[Apache]

8 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

I asked basically the same question earlier in this thread some time ago. I never received an answer, but I'm assuming that "OBJ1" is the whole of Wilcox, and that the reference to an photo is for "local color" only.

Another brain twister is in "Day at the Beach." The scenario starts with a platoon of Marine Combat Engineers and Forward Observer team on the beach. I haven't been able to determine why they are there. In my estimation, the only time we'd have Engineers on the beach would to clear obsticles and mines. As a former Marine, I'd expect the initial landing party to be Force Recon to scout out and identify enemy positions. They could also call in initial fire missions if necessary, so the FO team is unnecessary too. Initial setup is pretty much a "head scratcher" for me.

Yeah I kinda mentally wrote it off as that too, Obj 1 being Wilcox, bit confusing though.  If the photo thing is for colour only, personally I'd prefer it got left out, odd that it says 'click here to see aerial photo' (or words to that effect).

Another thing I can't fathom, the notes on the new engine refer to a FPS camera mode.  Doubt I'd use it, just curious to see what it looks like though.  Am I correct in assuming it's in the main game only and not in the demo.  I've looked at the hot keys and also the options when you select the mission but can't see anything pertaining to FPS.

I was curious about engineers being the first units on the back to, even an FO.  Like you say I'd have expected Recon or even regular Marines.  I'm guessing things like that can be edited (without too much difficulty) in the scenario editor in the main game.  I wouldn't normally risk an FO in an exposed position with that much lead flying around TBH.

[MarkEzra]

8 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

….

Another brain twister is in "Day at the Beach." The scenario starts with a platoon of Marine Combat Engineers and Forward Observer team on the beach. I haven't been able to determine why they are there. In my estimation, the only time we'd have Engineers on the beach would to clear obsticles and mines. As a former Marine, I'd expect the initial landing party to be Force Recon to scout out and identify enemy positions. They could also call in initial fire missions if necessary, so the FO team is unnecessary too. Initial setup is pretty much a "head scratcher" for me.

Thing 1:  The Blue units on the board at the beginning of the game are to have something to do besides slugging down beer and eating pretzels... Really!  The Amphibs are reinforcements.

The FO is a MUST for Human Player 1st turn arty- air strikes.

Thing 2:  The Engineers were used against wire and mines when I was doing the original scenario.  Also They were a compact unit which allowed fewer order slots.

Thing 3: As the author of A Day at the Beach I made a decision NOT to be realistic so much as fun.  Honestly -  No Marine would plan such a hap hazard beach assault with No intel, a couple of Helo's and pretend Naval Guns .   The Scenario was designed to display the New game features and to blow stuff up.

[Vet 0369]

14 hours ago, MarkEzra said:

Thing 1:  The Blue units on the board at the beginning of the game are to have something to do besides slugging down beer and eating pretzels... Really!  The Amphibs are reinforcements.

The FO is a MUST for Human Player 1st turn arty- air strikes.

Thing 2:  The Engineers were used against wire and mines when I was doing the original scenario.  Also They were a compact unit which allowed fewer order slots.

Thing 3: As the author of A Day at the Beach I made a decision NOT to be realistic so much as fun.  Honestly -  No Marine would plan such a hap hazard beach assault with No intel, a couple of Helo's and pretend Naval Guns .   The Scenario was designed to display the New game features and to blow stuff up.

Ah, thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. I know that the original in CMSF1 had the company start on the beach in AAVs, but real life and work got in the way of me playing much more than one Striker campaign and the first couple of missions of the Sempre Fi campaign. Since the FO team is there for a first minute artillery strike, it looks like I'll be playing A Day at the Beach again.

Thank you for all your work revising scenarios and maps.

[akd]

On 11/8/2018 at 2:44 PM, Erwin said:

Exactly. 

The only issue is that the 9 man US squads can only be split into 2 teams.  So, if 2 guys are in one team, that leaves an unwieldy 7-man team.  I suppose if this reflects RL, that's ok.  But, it doesn't make much sense. 

In CMBS the 7 man Ukr squads can be split into 3 teams (2+2+3) and that makes them tactically much more useful than the US - which again is counterintuitive.

AFAIK, there is no default 7-man squad with a 3-team structure.  IIRC, UKR has a mountain motor rifle platoon with a 10 or 11 man squad which would require the 3-team structure to still be capable of a 2-man split off (1 team cannot have more than 7 men, and the total number of teams is hard-coded to the squad).  Such a squad that is understrength or has taken casualties might appear as 7 men in 3 teams.

Personally I'd prefer that US squads did have a 3-team structure, with the SL in his own team alone and 2x 4-man fire teams, but I believe Steve does not like putting only 1 man into a team. (He really worries about his pixeltruppen creations getting lonely and lamenting their creator.)

Edited November 27, 2018 by akd