Immersion and gaming

[c3k]

Again, a partial quote:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If I understand the mechanics, every 8 meters is an action spot. The exception being buildings. It seems the movement grid is broken into 8 meter spots as well. Is that true?

True.

If so, how about an adjustment in action spot locations. I mean a parallel to what has been done with buildings. Buildings are tactically useful terrain. You have coded the game to increase the simulation fidelity around these pieces of useful (and often fought over) terrain.

Why not do the same for elevation changes?

Not possible. Buildings are a predictable entity and are either on the map as a whole element or not at all. This is not possible with terrain because terrain is inherently flexible.

However, keep in mind that the TacAI is capable of using terrain within an Action Spot. It does understand concepts like better cover, poorer cover, and even elevation changes.

Where a hill crests is VERY important. Likewise the bottom of a ravine.

This is one of those tricky concepts to "teach" a computer. The difference between a tactically meaningless elevation change and a meaningful one is pretty easy for a Human to detect, but very difficult to get the computer to understand to the same degree.

The TacAI currently does have the ability to recognize ridgelines, gullies, etc. The issue is, I think, that it isn't possible for it to do it in all situations equally well all the time. The problem is players expect it to be right all the time, even if that isn't necessarily realistic (soldiers do some mighty stupid things in real life, as the soldiers here keep reminding you all). So there will probably be some amount of disconnect between player expectation and the TacAI's performance forever. All we can hope for is to reduce this as much as possible as we move along. But to expect it to always get it right is pretty much an expectation that will only lead to disappointment.

Steve [/QB]</font>

[c3k]

Again, a partial quote (the internal quotes are from one of my posts - Steve's quotes are in response to that. I messed up the format of quotes within quotes.):

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If I understand the mechanics, every 8 meters is an action spot. The exception being buildings. It seems the movement grid is broken into 8 meter spots as well. Is that true?

True.

If so, how about an adjustment in action spot locations. I mean a parallel to what has been done with buildings. Buildings are tactically useful terrain. You have coded the game to increase the simulation fidelity around these pieces of useful (and often fought over) terrain.

Why not do the same for elevation changes?

Not possible. Buildings are a predictable entity and are either on the map as a whole element or not at all. This is not possible with terrain because terrain is inherently flexible.

However, keep in mind that the TacAI is capable of using terrain within an Action Spot. It does understand concepts like better cover, poorer cover, and even elevation changes.

Where a hill crests is VERY important. Likewise the bottom of a ravine.

This is one of those tricky concepts to "teach" a computer. The difference between a tactically meaningless elevation change and a meaningful one is pretty easy for a Human to detect, but very difficult to get the computer to understand to the same degree.

The TacAI currently does have the ability to recognize ridgelines, gullies, etc. The issue is, I think, that it isn't possible for it to do it in all situations equally well all the time. The problem is players expect it to be right all the time, even if that isn't necessarily realistic (soldiers do some mighty stupid things in real life, as the soldiers here keep reminding you all). So there will probably be some amount of disconnect between player expectation and the TacAI's performance forever. All we can hope for is to reduce this as much as possible as we move along. But to expect it to always get it right is pretty much an expectation that will only lead to disappointment.

Steve [/qb]</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood:

Unless I missed a post somewhere, I haven't seen Dorosh post anything I would call "bannable". I have seen some of BFC's testers post more confrontational stuff than Dorosh, and I don't even think that was bannable.

Me either, though I don't come into the CMSF forum much. He makes excellent points I happen to agree with a lot of the time. </font>

[Sito]

I don't want to start a flame with my first post but I think that there too many whiners here.

The game has many apsects to improve but in my opinion it's worth it's price.

I really love the new setting, there are simply too many WWII clones on the market.

[rune]

And I have worked with 12 publishers and on over 45 war games, and never ran into that situation. What does that prove? Nothing, Cory had a different experience is all. His opinion is valid, but so is mine... and you don't see me insulting him for his opinion, try that some time.

People keep spouting opinions like it is fact. I see you are on the "rune is only a fair scenario designer" kick again. this is opinion, not fact. I can gather scenario designer that say your scenarios sucked...and you know what, it doesn't mean a thing. Maybe for a scenario it did, but it is an opinion, and nothing more. Should I throw out the hundreds of emails saying they loved my work because you have a different opinion? Nope. Especially when you state things like the scenarios I make are all the same, it just shows you don't pay attention. Breaching the berm is nothing like attacking an airfield which is nothing like a cut off tank being attacking which is nothing like the scenario I made based on a very real situation.

So are my points vaild since I have more exeprience in wargame development then Cory? In my mind, they carry the same weight. I'd be a fool to ignore his comments completely, but also I know it is NOT the norm. Most of the developers I worked with never even posted on a forum, the noise ratio was too high. Grogs were looked at as a nuisance, and too low in numbers to affect sales. Lewis considered himself a grog, need I say more?

Ken, the problem with your solution is the terrain IS a 1 meter grid. When a unit comes out, it would have to know what is in every direction, not just what is in front. This meter check would have to run consistanly, as the unit moves. Charles is the only one who could tell you how maybe computer cycles would be eaten up per unit and how it could effect gameplay. Remember, you can have hundreds of units on the map at once. Not a bad idea, but computer intensive... not sure if feasible or not.

Rune

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by rune:

People keep spouting opinions like it is fact.

This the crux of the matter, IMO.

[M1A1TC]

It it interesting to me how WW2 setting is more immersive to some people (a war that happened about 70 years ago) that a modern setting with modern equipment, being used in atleast 2 major wars for the past 5 years.

Are people so detached from reality?

[76mm]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Let me put it this way; I think you hang out with a much different bunch of nerds than I do. No interest in samurai? No interest in Mediveal? Those two probably share with WWII status among top five thematic settings for a game.

Heh, I've always considered these to be small niche markets (granted with loyal followings), and that the Total War series was able to sell these games to a much bigger audience, but indeed maybe there are more samurai/knight nerds out there than I thought. I know that I didn't have much interest in these periods but greatly enjoyed the games.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...

You'll also have to tend the bar,

Hold on now, let's not get ridiculous.

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

It it interesting to me how WW2 setting is more immersive to some people (a war that happened about 70 years ago) that a modern setting with modern equipment, being used in atleast 2 major wars for the past 5 years.

Are people so detached from reality?

Asymmetry might have something to do with this.

[JasonC]

Opinions and facts, false dicotomy in this context. Everything that comes out of a human being's mouth (or typing fingers) is an opinion, including how many millimeters in a lab measurement or what temperature on a thermometer. This doesn't make them "un-facts". If a meteor smashes your car you won't confuse it with an opinion and argue with the glowing chunks of rock, but that isn't what is happening here.

On abstraction in CMx1, 3 men not individuals, minute turns not real time, morale state and quality level determined fixed command delays, not fully modeled C3I, ammo points not bullets, exposure percentages and FP numbers not flight of small arms bullet tracks, a few morale states for entire squads, mostly morale base outcomes, a few categories of behind armor effect not detailed tracking of shot passage inside a tank, a few armor plate "locations" with basically fixed hit chances, varying only hull up or hull down not e.g. by vehicle type and armor area, percentages to hit not modeling gunner actions, random variation in shot to shot armor penetration ability, "curved" plate ratings, armor quality ratings, area fire effect to deal with point squad placement, simple building movements and no modeled interiors, abstracted infantry close assault routines, simple abstracted hand to hand routines, point and call fire FO behavior with fixed delay not spotting rounds, command line to spot for mortars on map not full C3I, etc. CMx1 had tons of design for effect and wouldn't have worked at all without it.

On detecting significant crestlines, it would be too expensive to do dynamically and too much to do it for every insignificant terrain wrinkle, but it is still possible to detect the likely important ones at scenario start. Which would be useful for strategic AI stuff if that goes beyond scripting, incidentally. The formal method is called distance fields. Distance fields can be precalculated for movement and for visibility, here it is the latter that is relevant.

The following calculation is done only once at game start. The idea is from each point on the map, you calculate the visible area from that point. Give that point a field value of that area. You can simplify the calculation by gridding the terrain first, it won't make too much difference for what follows. Pick a practical scale for the calculating power you have.

Points that can see nearly the whole map will all have the highest possible value and that value will be essentially equal. Points that can see nothing but the bottom of their little "well" or "hole" in a sea of cover, will have very low values. Big "cells" of separated LOS (all in A see all in A, all in B see all in B, e.g. two sides of a ridge) will have similar values to each other, with the size of that value ranking the size of the big cells. Plotted as a kind of contour map, the "high ground" will be points of maximum visibility, etc.

Now take the first difference of that distance field, for small steps in each of a cardinal number of directions (4, 6 for a hex grid, 8 are common choices), compass rose movements. This just means subtract the point by point numerical values of two copies of the field, shifting the coordinates one step in each of those directions. The result is a new distance field, which now measures not total visibility, but the change in total visibility for one step in each of the directions. Edges will pop out.

A crestline that is likely to be of tactical significance can now be defined - it is the set of locations with top values of any of the first difference fields (any, meaning for any direction of unit-step), while also being in the top half or so of the overall visibility field.

These calculations are routinely employed both in AI work, in robotics, in game and sims, and even in architecture and urban planning. You don't need to recalulate LOS lines on the fly, nor assume every bump "might be" significant. You will get all the major features. For minor ones, some "soldier error" is realistic anyway.

You can get more sophisticated with these, by e.g. weighting areas seen in the calculations. Near an objective, more weight; has cover, more weight. You can also weight a direction by making the first difference field count for more if the direction of step is from set up zone toward enemy set up zone. For AI uses those may matter, but the basic version will do quick and dirty terrain analysis pretty darn well. Not human well, but way better than not having any.

FWIW...

[ April 01, 2008, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[carlR]

Because c3k mentioned the scenario I loaded up Al Amarah last night and tried to get my squads to line the elevated road and pour concentrated fire into the buildings on the other side. Would they do it? I could get 2 guys from each squad at the ridge firing at the enemy whilst the rest sat lower down the hill twiddling their thumbs. The alternative would be to have some of the squad on top of the ridge getting killed. Since concentration of firepower is such an essential element of warfare in this century, in this respect CMSF does not even come close to simulating it. The ideal solution would be the ability to 'draw' a position/formation for the squad on the terrain as in the TW series...but no doubt this would be impossible to implement.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Opinions and facts, false dicotomy in this context. Everything that comes out of a human being's mouth (or typing fingers) is an opinion, including how many millimeters in a lab measurement or what temperature on a thermometer. This doesn't make them "un-facts". If a meteor smashes your car you won't confuse it with an opinion and argue with the glowing chunks of rock, but that isn't what is happening here.

[joke] Jason, according to the guy in your signature nothing is a fact either ... [/joke]

The formal method is called distance fields ...

I'm not sure if it is using distance fields, but a "precomputed" map is implemented in Point of Attack 2 (HPS). In-game, you can peek at the calculation results and it will show you "points for interest" for each side. Those "points of interest" usually include crests and hills. The nice thing is that the AI in that game prepares a defense or attack based on those points. It even re-arranges the OOB based on those terrain features. Way cool.

Cheers,

[Chelco]

Originally posted by carlR:

... and tried to get my squads to line the elevated road and pour concentrated fire into the buildings on the other side.

Can you alleviate that problem by splitting the squads into fire teams?

Cheers,

[JasonC]

Two other points that didn't make it into my last, since distance fields went "long" and I forgot about them briefly (lol).

On grogs, Napoleon used the term as one of affection, and knew better than to try to stop all grumbling or to take a cessation of grumbling as a good sign. On the contrary, the value of his grumbling veteran NCOs was that they weren't panglosses, unlike the officers who would sugar coat everything, and weren't too intimidated to speak up, unlike the rankers and newcomers. The only way to find out what was actually wrong was the listen to the sergeants bitching and moaning.

He also knew that nothing was better for morale that to stand and listen to a sergeant's rant ripping into his officers, then agree with said sergeant, dress the marshals and generals down, and fix whatever it was on the spot. He was past master of such populist moments, and knew well that seeing it even once could motivate men enough they'd walk calmly into grapeshot.

BTS has always been remarkably good at listening to feedback, and has taken its pick and implemented suggestions over the years. It has been less remarkably good at the populist morale aspects of the matter, in my opinion because it has a misguided notion of the usefulness of officer-ese pangloss-ianism (if that's a word), in PR terms. Possibly it is psychologically difficult enough to put up with grog quirks, for some. I personally don't see it - a grog complaining about some point of minutae is clearly happy as a clam, as their womenfolk have figured out long ago. When they shut up and want to be elsewhere, is when it is time to worry. As for the dream of them all cooing away like little doves, put down the crack pipe.

The second point was about Tiller. His games are in fact a monument to the importance and longevity of a sound underlying game design. Which was all there in Terrible Swift Sword in the 1970s. His games suffer from simply horrible interface work, and his own recent design decisions have been uniformly poor (giantism, pushing scale way beyond the playable point, single guns in battery and regiment scale games to track every type precisely, etc). That any of them sold a single copy ever, is a tribute not to his progamming or computer anything, but to TSS and its original system.

If he had a decent interface design and some graphics, and avoided the predictable stuff ups with giantism and literalism and minutae, all undermining playability, I'd be playing those still.

[ April 01, 2008, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[M1A1TC]

We used to have a Tanker's Grog when I was an active duty tanker - everyone brought whatever alcohol they had, and poured it all into a giant bowl. It was all mixed up, and drank by everyone

[c3k]

carlR,

Thanks for taking the time to investigate the scenario. I post as much factual and repeatable information as I can for that very reason.

FWIW, I think "Al Amarah" presents an interesting situation. I just wish the elevated road weren't such a problem for the game engine.

Regards,

Ken

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by carlR:

Because c3k mentioned the scenario I loaded up Al Amarah last night and tried to get my squads to line the elevated road and pour concentrated fire into the buildings on the other side. Would they do it? I could get 2 guys from each squad at the ridge firing at the enemy whilst the rest sat lower down the hill twiddling their thumbs. The alternative would be to have some of the squad on top of the ridge getting killed. Since concentration of firepower is such an essential element of warfare in this century, in this respect CMSF does not even come close to simulating it. The ideal solution would be the ability to 'draw' a position/formation for the squad on the terrain as in the TW series...but no doubt this would be impossible to implement.

I agree that the way the game handles squad formation with regard to crests and ridges is currently suboptimal -- C3k and I have had some other discussions about this in another thread.

I am hopeful that things can be improved in this areay because the game does handle other kinds of "linear cover" fairly well. Units usually queue up pretty well into a line abreast behind a low wall or in a trench, for example. So I'm hopeful that the TacAI behavior can be improved so that squads use natural terrain features like crests, ridges and embankments more like they use low walls and trenchs.

But anyway. . . for now, a partial workaround is to split the squad into teams. By ordering the two teams onto the ridgline, roughly one action spot apart, you'll get more soldiers up onto the ridgeline firing. I view this as a temporary workaround until the TacAI can be improved in this area.

Also, one refinement: While I don't have any direct experience, my understanding of modern small-unit tactics is that every single soldier in the squad should *not* be up on the ridgeline, even in a firefight. Rather, the squad usually reserves one or two men out of LOS in defilade to watch the flanks, assist with communication, etc.

But right now in CMSF, unless you split squads, the proportions are roughly backwards -- you usually get 2 men up on the fighting crest firing, and 7 men sitting back in the defilade. It should be the other way around.

Incidentally, there are times you want only one or two men up on the top of the ridge. For example, if you're scouting, you might just want one or two men to peek over the rise. IMHO, this is the exception best handled by split squads -- split off the small AT team or the Assault Team, and send them up to take a peek.

Cheers,

YD

[BFCElvis]

Michael,

I think you should carefully read this response you made to Webwing as it is an excellent example of what Steve has been trying to convey to you about the manner with which you state your points:

" You don't need to own a Smart Car to realize that they don't deliver a family of four complete with groceries from point A to point B, so do you really need to own one before you can criticize it for being poorly designed for that purpose?"

The Smart car is NOT designed for that purpose. There is not "poorly designed" for the purpose of moving a family of four it is simply not designed for tha. And if someone had expectations that it should have been designed to transport the wife and kids and is disappointed that it doesn't it is not because the design was poor. It just isn't the car that meets your needs. And telling the designers that you woul like to be able to transport your posse in a Smart Car and asking if they would consider altering the design so that you could is a different thing than saying it is poorly designed.

I think this intellectual masterbation is a good example of what bothers Steve about your comments.

John

[Battlefront.com]

Runyan99,

In retrospect it wasn't long after Talonsoft lost 'their grogs' that the company had totally gone astray and soon went out of business.

Again, you misread what happen. I remember the sales figures for each of their games and they were on a downward trend. This was not because they pissed off the grogs, it was because cost were going up and the number of people interested in playing 2D rehashes of a single game engine were going down (not even staying level). They were already a dead company walking before they "lost their focus", as you put it.

If you hold to pattern, CMx2 WW2 will flop, then you'll publish Space Lobsters to pay the bills for a while, and you will be a history by 2010.

The irony is if we followed your concept we'd be out of business in 2005 But because we aren't following the Talonsoft model, which was to milk the grogs and then find that they ran out of milk, we've made CMx2. We're not going out of business until we decide we'd rather be doing something else. The funny thing is, as I said above, grogs are their own worst enemy because they're collective behavior makes us wonder why the heck we would want to do this any more. But don't worry... we won't give in, because then the terrorists would win

John Kettler,

I'd like to ask a simple question, which no doubt has a complex answer, not just at the cording level, but likely at the intercorporate level, too.

Is there anything that TOW, or for that matter even Drop Team, does well that could be used to help solve some of the issues causing so much heartburn in CMSF? If so, how difficult would it be to arrange such use of the relevant code in your CMx2 engine?

Code sharing is impossible, both from a practical coding standpoint as well as from an ownership standpoint. We have never seen a line of code from any other game other than what Charles writes and we never will. That's just the way things go.

As for the practical angle, think of it like this. You really like the open floorplan of a single story wooden house. Great light, feeling, etc. Now you go to build a skyscraper. How much good would the blueprints for that wooden house do for you as you go to engineer the skyscraper? Aesthetics aside, not much. So in coding you generally look at other people's end results and take lessons away from them which you then incorporate into your own work effort.

Thomm,

Just to voice a different opinion: I have been playing WW2 wargames for roughly a decade (CC2, CC4, CC5, EYSA, CM:BO, CM:BB, CM:AK) and I notice that I am pretty saturated by the theme at this point.

Absolutely agree with this and you certainly aren't the only one to say exactly the same thing. My point is that there are many people out there that want to see the same movie 10 times in a row without interruption. Those guys are the ones that will be much happier with CMx2 when it is in Normandy vs. Syria even if we didn't change a single thing (which, as I said, isn't the case).

C'Rogers

While not nearly a frequent poster I have a related but different issue. That is if you think something is worthless, or not worth much, say so. Generally the gamer attitude is 'if it can go in, why not'. Of course the why not is that for everything that goes in some other things have been left out.

Yes, very true. It's a hopeless fight for us, but we do occasionally try to remind people that in life things don't magically pop out of thin air Everything has a price associated with it, and in our case that price is most often time. Time that has to be, eventually, compensated for. Therefore features must be chosen carefully so as to not break the budget. Anybody who runs their own home finances that doesn't pay attention to this gets debt collectors on their asses, those who manage departments without regard to productivity and budgets get fired or demoted, those who run their own businesses without a concept of how to make a profit from their labor go out of business, etc. It seems like such a simple concept, however gamers (in general) seem to think these basic rules don't apply to game development for some reason.

76mm,

While I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think that truly great games overcome any initial indifference or even opposition to the setting... So I would say lack of interest in a particular theater or era is more of a "speedbump" than a "roadblock" to immersion."

Depends on the individual, but in general I agree that sometimes it is possible to overcome inherent disinterest by having an extremely compelling game system. Those types of games come about only once in a Blue Moon. We didn't have that with CMx1 and we don't have it with CMx2, so it isn't applicable to us.

As I already cited as an example... more than a few CMBO fanatics have never, or only reluctantly purchased, CMBB. Why? Because the ability to be immersed decreased dramatically? No, for the most part it was simple lack of interest. Not much we can do to counter that.

c3k,

At what point does a customer who posts here become a classified as a grog?

I figured someone would ask this Like anything it is a spectrum of behavior. Someone can come here and post every single day and still not strike me as a grog. Other guys can make one post, and only one post, and make me think of nothing else but grog. Grogs are also a specific flavor of what the industry calls "hardcore gamer". Look at the forums of any other game genre and you'll find the same type of posters you see here, but the ones that look the most like grogs probably won't even know what that term means. But there they will be, on the Halo 3 forums complaining about how utterly unrealistic it is that you can't jump, shoot, and throw a grenade simultaneously and that if Bungie doesn't "fix it" they'll never purchase another Bungie game ever again

If you discount grog complaints, and then point to any other complainers as a non-representative minority, the only posters you have left are supporters.

Not true at all. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, feels that any game can be improved. They will say so when given the slightest opportunity to speak their minds. The difference is the extreme grog expects absolute slavish attention to every little thing they say and that no questions be raised about their accuracy, relevance, or (worse of all) validity. They might still have a good point buried in amongst the posturing and overblown feeling of self worth, but it takes a trained eye to be able to skip over all the crap and find the nugget of valuable material in the middle of it.

I would submit that the supporters are the ones you should ignore. Sure, take the pat on the back. You've worked hard. Accept a bit of thanks and take pride in your accomplishments. But the path to decay surely starts by ignoring criticisms and only valuing accolades.

True, which is why we embrace criticism and make improvements based directly upon it. My answers here are ready evidence of that, as well as the list of user requests that have been added to all our games since we first started doing this (not to mention the CM:SF patches).

I know you've mentioned the value of constructive criticism, but where is the line?

At what point do you take the postings here seriously?

Turn this around and see what it looks like from the other side. Where is the line when constructive criticism turn into valueless rants? At what point do we not take rantings seriously? Also, at what point do we let the people who complain the loudest squash the enjoyment of the "supporters"? Look back at the thread when I reappeared during my v1.05 absence when I said I wouldn't let the "critics" run roughshod over the "supporters". People came out of the woodwork to say "thank you, I've not wanted to post here in fear of being virtually beaten up for actually liking the game". There are lines all over the place and it's tough to navigate them, but one thing we'll never do is let the grog's define where those lines are. We'd be out of business sooner if we did than than let the supporters tell us to change nothing at all (which, as I pointed out, they don't do anyway).

Steve

[ April 01, 2008, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Why would it be hard to identify significant changes in elevation?

Yes, because "significant" is generally context sensitive. As I said, CMx2 can sense ridgelines and behave in a way that is consistent with player expectations most times (tweaks as of v1.07 really helped that), however "most" isn't what someone wants to hear when they experience the exceptional circumstance. So it's a matter of how important we feel dealing with the situations it doesn't get right is compared to the other things people want to see in the game. Diminishing returns and all of that. In a perfect world we wouldn't have constraints like this, but this world isn't perfect. Shocking revelation I know

And to jump down to something YankeeDog said lower down:

Incidentally, there are times you want only one or two men up on the top of the ridge. For example, if you're scouting, you might just want one or two men to peek over the rise. IMHO, this is the exception best handled by split squads -- split off the small AT team or the Assault Team, and send them up to take a peek.

That's an example of the sort of context sensitivity I'm talking about. Sometimes an insignificant fold in the ground isn't a ridge, but due to the placement of the enemy becomes akin to one. Sometimes you want to minimize your profile on a ridgeline (ridgelines can be dangerous places), other times you want every man up there.

I agree that the area to look into with the current TacAI is how to better instruct the TacAI to get everyman into firing positions. It does a pretty good job of this now, but again... there are probably situations where improvement is possible.

Steve

[ April 01, 2008, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Meach]

I for one am glad you done Modern combat first off the CMx2 engine.

Bugger invading Russia again so soon....

[BFCElvis]

I like that it is modern first too because far and away WW2 most interests me and by the time it is released the major kinks will be worked out of the engine.

[Meach]

Elvis that is spot on!

CMSF will show what needs work for the CM:Normandy.

[meade95]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

The OP's post had very little to do with setting, and much more to do with TacAI and pathfinding issues.

Going back to WW2 won't make those issues go away. You've got to get soldiers to do realistic stuff, or what gets shown on the screen is garbage.

I agree - And I further believe there is a worthy market out there (un-tapped to a degree) for a game like this (CMSF). A mondern-day wargame.

With continued improvements to the TacAI & pahtfinding I believe CMSF will only gain a new and larger following.....(precisely because of the modern day setting). Though, I understand without a doubt the older WWII type wargames have the largest following of all (currently).

I absolutely love the setting and modern day setting -

I see CMSF as a very playable wargame right now - And one with the clear support of BFC is only going to get better with time. BF obviously stands behind their products....and clearly are willing to listen to their customer base (even if they can't meet all its wants and needs).

[ April 01, 2008, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: meade95 ]