Steam reviews need support

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

In a perfect world the player would be able to be more specific in the settings (Iron to Basic are good but not really customizable) and maybe even tailor AI difficulty...it is pretty much set to "kill all humans" right now.

To me that's what gives CM some of its replayability, there's a huge differnce between playing any scenario as a novice and then coming back to it after you've learned the game.

I actually found CM:CW to be the easiest of the CM games to get on with.....I suspect that this is because the scenarios are well balanced for HtH (or to play either side), thus the AI has generally been given a good hiding (as it should). 

I only ever play Iron, because it's the only mode that really helps you to understand the battlefield.....'Who knows what, when and who they are telling' and that is what makes CM largely unique IMHO. 

[chuckdyke]

We need more people to inform players the benefits of playing Iron. Battle of Normandy the tutorial campaign. You start with a platoon and three trucks. Here is what you can do on Iron. Make one squad Red Force and the other two squads Blue Force. Red Force takes positions in the farm complex. Blue Force approaching the farm complex. The trucks can function as AFV's. On Iron you need to spot your own troops. This is an excellent tool to learn about spotting. A squad inside a building on hide will remain invisible. Sending scouts for example is a suicide mission. Give it a go this tutorial is an eyeopener as a little testing exercise for spotting. 

[BeondTheGrave]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Heh, I see a mix of concern, hope and schadenfreude when I skim other boards (and sometime in here) on this topic.  The answer, in so far as to what I can say is likely "no", we are not on the margins.  Our popularity is quite strong compared to our initial estimates, a little surprising to be honest, and healthy enough to get us the green light for a DLC.  We won't have wide distribution details for some time but the support on the BFC release alone was enough to make us happy.

Just anecdotal, but I bought CMBS on a lark a few years ago and bounced right off it. That game is, IMO, even less forgiving and yet you simultaneously have so much more equipment to get lost in. Analysis paralysis combined with high lethal weapons. 

CMCW is the reason why I've learned to love CM, so much so that I recently bought CMBN and some of the DLC. For me I love the era and its set at the exact heart of the thing I study. It feels like the US campaign was made just for me. But it was also a better game to learn on, IMO. Its unforgiving of mistakes, but the solutions are also (IMO) comparatively simple. You just have to focus on the basics: use the combined arms team, use smoke, use artillery, and pit strength against weakness. Those are classic, timeless lessons. And CMCW teaches them well. 

Personally if I disagree with @TheCaptain on one thing, I think the smaller campaigns (platoon, company, etc.) would be really fun and interesting. But I think thats a great space for modders or maybe for a later add on campaign. I think thats another strength of CMCW. There is such a broad canvas of potential missions built in, and really the idea to add in an NTC tileset was genius. I have so many ideas. Im also super excited to see where things evolve from here, adding more will only make this module better. As long as more is Leopards : P The campaigns and single scenarios that are built in feel like the natural ones, the ones people want. The core US & Soviet experiences. Its also great that March or Die was included for the true masochists. 

Could there be a better tutorial? Probably. But you can say that about all the CM games. Really I wish that CM were just more intuitive. Perhaps Engine 5 will include the option to just skim orders right off the top of my brain. But for what CMCW really is, I love it. World in Conflict got me into the Cold War, but CMCW teaches me things about what it would have actually been like. And IMO thats the mark of a truely well made simulation. For it to actually reflect, if not perfectly mirror, real life. 

5/5 would play again. 

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

5/5 would play again

Wow, well thank you very much.  I cannot tell you how rewarding it is to have someone get true enjoyment out of our little game.  Well now I am thinking about a campaign of the small, your words have moved me.  Let me think about that but I may see an opportunity. 

[BeondTheGrave]

11 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Wow, well thank you very much.  I cannot tell you how rewarding it is to have someone get true enjoyment out of our little game.  Well now I am thinking about a campaign of the small, your words have moved me.  Let me think about that but I may see an opportunity. 

Personally in playing with smaller unit actions I've concluded that the individual Soviet squad is generally better than the US equivalent, at least in anti-infantry combat. The US squad has the Dragon sure, but the RPG seems more useful against non-MBT targets. And a lot of Soviet squads have a DM with a Dragunov. But the real difference is in the battle taxi. The M113 is probably the worst of the main five taxis. Even a BTR with its 14.5mm KPV outguns the M113, which cannot withstand anything over rifle caliber. The lack of an exposed gunner on the BTR is also a huge advantage, after all the Soviets get a lot of marksmen to pick off those M2 gunners. 

All this is to say there are fun opportunities at the small unit scale and in infantry centric engagements to subvert players expectations and learned experience regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the two sides. 

[Centurian52]

On 11/23/2021 at 12:23 PM, The_Capt said:

I rarely thought about "play balance" to be honest.  I looked at the ground, the likely forces on that ground and built what made military sense based on the doctrine of both sides.

I've generally been of the opinion that balance is overrated anyway.

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

I've generally been of the opinion that balance is overrated anyway.

Agreed.  I'm playing Stem the Tide now, PBEM, as the Americans.  The fun is in being outnumbered and outgunned and just trying to hold on by your fingernails!  This one turned into a close range knife fight with the kitchen sink thrown in as well.  Super good times!  I'm losing but I am fighting as hard as I can and getting great enjoyment just seeing how long I can hang on!  I find realistic scenarios, regardless of odds, much more fun than balanced.

 

[Simcoe]

Well I did my part! Left my review and looked at the others and damn. The top ones are so unfair. It makes me wonder how many good games I didn't play because of an unfair review.

[Codreanu]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

Well I did my part! Left my review and looked at the others and damn. The top ones are so unfair. It makes me wonder how many good games I didn't play because of an unfair review.

I really enjoy CMCW but I can see their point, the series is really difficult to learn and sometimes it's hard to deal with the jank and generally "old" feel of the games with not much actual innovation when a new game comes out. Did CMCW really add anything unique besides cluster munitions? On the other hand Battlefront keeps giving even 10 year old games engine updates and occasional patches which no other devs do which I'm sure takes up a ton of developer time. CMx2 feels like it's at the end of it's lifespan so I hope we do get a CMx3 that brings the game up to 2020s standards.

[Grey_Fox]

2 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Did CMCW really add anything unique besides cluster munitions? 

COMPETITIVE SOVIET EQUIPMENT!

Genuinely peer conflict in a near-modern setting rather than an event that occurred almost a century ago.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Grey_Fox

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, Codreanu said:

I really enjoy CMCW but I can see their point, the series is really difficult to learn and sometimes it's hard to deal with the jank and generally "old" feel of the games with not much actual innovation when a new game comes out. Did CMCW really add anything unique besides cluster munitions? On the other hand Battlefront keeps giving even 10 year old games engine updates and occasional patches which no other devs do which I'm sure takes up a ton of developer time. CMx2 feels like it's at the end of it's lifespan so I hope we do get a CMx3 that brings the game up to 2020s standards.

I guess it depends on what you mean by new. If you mean models and terrain not much but if you consider game play CW is a massive difference from the other modern games. Both sides are equal in technology and the battles are much larger in scope and more mechanized. These aren't beatique task forces from Black Sea. These are WW2 scope battles with modern weaponry.

[Codreanu]

8 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by new. If you mean models and terrain not much but if you consider game play CW is a massive difference from the other modern games. Both sides are equal in technology and the battles are much larger in scope and more mechanized. These aren't beatique task forces from Black Sea. These are WW2 scope battles with modern weaponry.

I meant more like specific features that sets it apart from the other games, Hapless ran a poll on what people were most excited for with CMCW and almost half of the responses were cluster munitions which would have been my response too. Stuff like drones, precision guided munitions, electronic warfare, civilian density, engineering vehicles, APS, etc if that makes sense. I guess some of those are in multiple games but they really make the setting come alive to me, if that makes sense. I think CMCW would have benefitted with more features like that, some engineering and mine clearing vehicles, maybe an abstraction of the use of chemical agents and the usage of MOPP suits, an abstraction of counter-battery radar only letting you get a couple of volleys off before your artillery assets have to redeploy, FASCAM, illumination rounds, planes dumping their ordinance in a single glorious pass due to the high threat environment instead of dropping bombs one by one over 10 minutes, more fortification options? Some/most of these might have been impossible to add for various reasons but it was mostly just a spitball to say I would have liked a bit more Cold War flavor to the game minus the mandatory T-64s, M60s, Dragons and the rest.

[civdiv]

I have seen some complaints about performance on the Steam version versus purchases direct from BF. I suggest BF checks that out and either quash or fix that early.

[Redwolf]

15 minutes ago, civdiv said:

I have seen some complaints about performance on the Steam version versus purchases direct from BF. I suggest BF checks that out and either quash or fix that early.

 

That earliest negative review almost certainly suffers from the laptop problem where the actual GPU is not used and integrated graphics are in effect until you set it in NVidia preferences. BFC should make more of an effort to prevent that.

[Redwolf]

19 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

I meant more like specific features that sets it apart from the other games, Hapless ran a poll on what people were most excited for with CMCW and almost half of the responses were cluster munitions which would have been my response too. Stuff like drones, precision guided munitions, electronic warfare, civilian density, engineering vehicles, APS, etc if that makes sense. I guess some of those are in multiple games but they really make the setting come alive to me, if that makes sense. I think CMCW would have benefitted with more features like that, some engineering and mine clearing vehicles, maybe an abstraction of the use of chemical agents and the usage of MOPP suits, an abstraction of counter-battery radar only letting you get a couple of volleys off before your artillery assets have to redeploy, FASCAM, illumination rounds, planes dumping their ordinance in a single glorious pass due to the high threat environment instead of dropping bombs one by one over 10 minutes, more fortification options? Some/most of these might have been impossible to add for various reasons but it was mostly just a spitball to say I would have liked a bit more Cold War flavor to the game minus the mandatory T-64s, M60s, Dragons and the rest.

 

Let's be honest, if you look at the individual negative points (not the weighting thereof which is different for people here) in the negative reviews you don't see much that is factually wrong.

It is just unfortunate that those 5 early negative reviews (only 2 in English) smashed down on us because they were Steam purchases and all the positive reviews were from Steam key activations - which don't count.

[Bagpipe]

20 hours ago, Redwolf said:

 

That earliest negative review almost certainly suffers from the laptop problem where the actual GPU is not used and integrated graphics are in effect until you set it in NVidia preferences. BFC should make more of an effort to prevent that.

Not necessarily. I am experiencing horrible frame drops and my rig is, if anything, more than capable and configured correctly. Elvis and I have been back and forth on the issue but cant get to the bottom of it. The fact that not everybody experiences this issue tells me there may be issues with the game engine and how it communicates with certain hardware configurations...possibly. The telltale sign is that my cpu and gpu are only being 15-20% utilized but the frames plummet anyway. It is certainly unusual. There are so many things it could be but it probably boils down to the fact that the engine has been dragged through the ringer for so long with updates being applied etc. It is certainly the larger maps that the issues become more noticeable so I wonder if CMCW is just pushing the engine a little close to it's limits.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Bagpipe

[Grey_Fox]

21 hours ago, Redwolf said:

 

That earliest negative review almost certainly suffers from the laptop problem where the actual GPU is not used and integrated graphics are in effect until you set it in NVidia preferences. BFC should make more of an effort to prevent that.

The steam version for me seems to be less performant on the larger scenarios than the BFC version. I double checked my nvidea settings and that isn't the source.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Grey_Fox

[civdiv]

What about folks seeing ‘RTS’ and thinking Red Alert and then getting slapped in the face once they hit ‘go’?

[Pelican Pal]

On 11/27/2021 at 7:56 PM, Redwolf said:

Let's be honest, if you look at the individual negative points (not the weighting thereof which is different for people here) in the negative reviews you don't see much that is factually wrong.

Yea, taking peek at the negative reviews and nearly all of them are

1. written in a positive tone

2. dislike that the games are as collectively expensive and/or the engine limits.

 

Quote

Too many units that makes the game boring trying to play after 20 min micromanaging everyone (you need because the game dont have a good pathfinding).

Like there isn't anything incorrect about this point. Its just a question of whether you are willing to put up with manually laying out all the waypoints for a MRB or not.

[Aragorn2002]

So I can only leave a review if I have steam key? 

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So I can only leave a review if I have steam key?

Yes I think it does. You can't comment on their forums unless you have a steam account. Which you get if you have a steam key. 

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So I can only leave a review if I have steam key? 

And if you have a steam key from BFC or Matrix your review doesn't count for the overall rating. Quite the trick.

[Bufo]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Yes I think it does. You can't comment on their forums unless you have a steam account. Which you get if you have a steam key. 

To get an account on Steam you don't have to get a key to any game. Sign up is free.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Bufo

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Bufo said:

Registrating is free.

Thank you what about writing a review if you are only registered? 

Edited December 12, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Grey_Fox]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So I can only leave a review if I have steam key? 

You can, but it's not counted.