CMx1 Veterans: How Do You Like CMSF?

[Steiner14]

I'd be interested, how the first impressions are among you CMx1-veterans (i mean those, who played CMBO and one of the sucessors or all three titles for a long time).

So how would a CM-veteran rate CMSF?

6 - I hate it!

5 - I don't like it

4 - I'm a bit disappointed

3 - It's not bad

2 - It's really good

1 - Excellent - Best CM experience ever!

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

1

Other than a few dissapointments in certain areas, and some lacking features (that'll probably get fixed), I really enjoy this CM

Of coarse, everytime I got a new CM when they were coming out, it was my new best CM experience ever.

[Childress]

7: Too early to tell.

[ParaBellum]

I started with 3, got to 2 during the course of the day and see a lot of potential for 1 once certain problems are fixed.

The game is very different from CMx1 and it takes quite some time to appreciate the depth it offers. The relative spotting is incredibly cool, as are such beautiful details like the modelling of speed of sound or the vastly improved arty/air support interface.

[Salkin]

Definitely too early to tell...I want a patch or two and with the incredible depth in this gameplay I need , say, 20 more hours to play before I can form a solid opinion.

It's definitely impressive, pretty, detailed and cool though...so it's not all bad .

//Salkin

[thewood]

There enough good things in it to make between a 1 and a 2. Adding a few things left out from the old CM days would make it a solid 1.

[Capt. Toleran]

1 - Excellent!

Is it different? Yes! That would be the whole point. From when CMBO came out back in 2000 (I think), all we heard was whining about how it should be real time (so many arguments about that one), model 1:1, be modern, etc.

So, here we are, and some people weren't ready for a change -- they wanted CMBB or AK with modern equipment, or all their old commands from the old game. I'm still getting used to the command menu, but I understand the logic (all commands with one hand). Camera is also still tricky, but eventually I'll work it out.

Unlike TOW, which I found mediocre off the bat, this is just awesome, everything I wanted and have been waiting for for all these years. I'm so happy that not only do I have this to play with, but upcoming modules as well, for modern and WWII.

Everyone has been playing CM so long, they forget what a steep learning curve it was (especially BB, ouch!). I used to have dreams about CM because of how much of a challenge it was to master it. The first 4 months were frustration mixed with joy. People forget this isn't your average war game, and if you play it on Elite and aren't ready for it (cough, I think I am, or will learn ), you will get spanked. This is a high-level game, with slim margins between winning and losing.

Don't think you're going to do brain surgery your first day at Medical school.

[Hev]

The campaign is AMAZING so far and im only on mission 2 I give it a 2

(Edit It would be a 1 if there was even a tiny little bit of choice over your forces in quick battles)

[Exel]

Right now it's a 4. The game didn't deliver what it promised (WeGo). I don't like not being able to buy units, and some of the controls could use an overhaul.

The engine itself looks very promising and has a lot of potential. If and when these early glitches are fixed, it promises to be a great game. The battles are already impressive.

[Potential Italian Player]

3 - It's not bad.

After few patches im sure it will be 1-Excellent.

In time for WW2 modules :cool:

[Other Means]

To early, and being played on too bad hardware to tell. When I first bought BB (where I started) I didn't get it straight off and kept playing a game and then putting it back. Eventually of course I was playing 4 games in parallel and jonesing for turns.

I stuck at it because there was *something there*.

Same here, except it's even worse because my PC is so bad. Luckily I'm getting a new one this week so I should be able to get a better impression.

First off though, it doesn't feel finished. You would expect things that worked in CM1 to be kept - like seeing all moves/targets at once, moving waypoints etc.

But I'll stick at it. I'm sure it'll come right.

[Pzman]

I'd say somewhere between 2 and 3. Not as ground breaking as CMBO, but fun at the same time. It will take time to pickup the new command and control style, but thats just one of the hoops you have to jump through when you move to a new game. It has the ability to be a good game, but it might still need a few tweaks before its great.

[Xipe66]

While it's still too early, experiencing moments like this and this in the game makes it close to 1 from the get go. That kind of simulation was what I was hoping for and expecting.

I'm pretty sure I like where it's going, and I adore the contemporary theater of war; a couple of hundred hours of gameplay and a few patches and we'll be good to go.

[InvaderCanuck]

I mirror Parabellum's sentiments.

It is no doubt a great game, however it needs polish in certain areas. I am also highly disappointed with the lack of a TC/IP WEGO option.

As it stands now, RT is playable in very small scenarios, hopefully in a patch or addon they can add TC/IP WEGO.

The problems i've seen with the game in no particular order.

Walls do not seem to actually obstruct LOS or incoming small arms. I've had infantry engage infantry through walls too high to climb over.

I've had vehicles engage infantry through walls or vice versa. Extremely annoying and I hope this can be fixed.

Keyboard camera controls are atrocious. I am sure this can be smoothed out, and with the smooth mouse camera control it isn't a major problem.

Line of sight and manual targeting. This is very strange because if you KNOW a unit is in a particular corner of a building however your current unit does not have an ID marker of any sort, you cannot direct fire to the appropriate location. You target the building and then you pour fire into the center of the building.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

Keyboard camera controls are atrocious. I am sure this can be smoothed out, and with the smooth mouse camera control it isn't a major problem.

Not to dismiss your other concerns, but this keeps coming up on the forum and seems particularly noteworthy. I've never used the keyboard commands. In fact, I've never even used the shift-click on the mouse; I've just moused everywhere and gotten comfortable with it (been several weeks with the game though).

Citing that the keyboard commands are atrocious but it doesn't matter much because you could probably use the mouse seems to me to be the same as saying that the keyboard commands really suck when you try and use them with your feet, but get better if you use your hands.

I mean - why not just use the mouse to start with?

[Task]

2. I like it so far. A few things are missing that I like from CMx1 games such unit stats (also casualties caused by said units) and an onscreen readout of where shells penetrate armor or whatever damage has been caused.

This engine can really bring the CMx2 games far with its potential. I am hoping the things I have listed can be brought back into the game in updates.

[InvaderCanuck]

What I was saying is. If the mouse controls were not smooth, it would basically be unplayable having to use the keyboard.

Since you haven't used the keyboard I'll describe what happens.

Your frame rate begins to chug. The controls are sluggish, randomly speeding up or slowing down.

So erratic control combined with a performance hit is unplayable. My rig runs the game flawlessly on maxed settings. If my system chugs using the keyboard I can only imagine what happens to people having issues with frame rate normally.

I honestly don't really understand your reasoning. I mean, I am happy to use the mouse exclusively, however, that doesn't mean other people will be. Nor should people ignore that one method of controlling the camera doesn't work right now ;p

[Yardstick]

1

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Task]

Another thing that I hope will be fixed is an identical WeGo to CMx1. Right now as it is you have to watch an entire turn, after the orders are given, without being able to fast forward/rewind or pause. Only until that 'observation' mode is done can you review (doesn't make sense to me).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

What I was saying is. If the mouse controls were not smooth, it would basically be unplayable having to use the keyboard.

Since you haven't used the keyboard I'll describe what happens.

Your frame rate begins to chug. The controls are sluggish, randomly speeding up or slowing down.

So erratic control combined with a performance hit is unplayable. My rig runs the game flawlessly on maxed settings. If my system chugs using the keyboard I can only imagine what happens to people having issues with frame rate normally.

I honestly don't really understand your reasoning. I mean, I am happy to use the mouse exclusively, however, that doesn't mean other people will be. Nor should people ignore that one method of controlling the camera doesn't work right now ;p

I just don't get why people want to use the keyboard at all?

I do miss using the arrow keys to navigate the map in "tourist" mode. In CMX1, I would go to ground level, and the arrow keys would glide me along as if I was strolling. Even in the simple graphics, it was a good way to tell if roads were logically laid out, not too bumpy, etc. My test of a map was - would I want to live there? Some of the maps were really eye-popping, even in CMX1. Now that we have much more complex terrain and buildings, they're even better. But I'm too lazy to figure out the keyboard commands.

In answer to the question, I think CM:SF succeeds in some areas and could be improved in others. It's hard to rate the AI as my opinion is that the best game experience is against another human. I think ultimately any game will fail to deliver a decent AI experience; I'd make a lousy software salesman. I also know that the majority of gamers out there play solo. I doubt that will change. I hope AIs get better; CM:SF's is an improvement over what has gone before.

I do know the programmable AI is smarter than CMX1's, but it is also more predictable - which is why there are slots for five different plans. If you play the same scenario 10 times, I think you're doing pretty well for play value, and it would take that many playings to get to be able to predict which plan the enemy is using (provided he has been provided with that many).

The CMX1 AI was unpredictable - a good thing but only to a point. You never knew if he was going to defend aggressively, and then usually the enemy showed up, leading a counterattack on a flag, with HQ and mortar units in the van. That kind of sucked, but hey, was hard to predict! Hence the appeal of playing humans.

I will bite the bullet and be the beta team guy who doesn't give CM:SF a 1. I won't even give it a 2. I think it is good value for the money and definitely has been a labour not only of love but of intellect and anticipation. I think you'll like the surprises in the campaign scenarios, for example, and all of us who contributed to that are waiting patiently to hear your input on what you thought of the maps, the objectives, how hard it was, the overall "feel" of each one. That will come as the weeks go by.

Would I have bought it were I not one of many on the team? I think I would have. Playing the demo the last couple of days impressed even me who has been living with the game off and on for a few weeks now. There have been so many tweaks since I was taken aboard that the game seems new to me. Watching the forum fill up 7 or 8 pages in a day was a neat experience, even despite the repeated negative postings. I realized the guys having a blast were too busy to post here.

Like all of you, I have a list of suggestions - we all do - of stuff I'd change to make it a "perfect" game, and like some of your suggestions, many are out in fantasy land, some are already on the BF.C to do list, and some have been filed away for future reference. I do know, by working closely with them, that the developers wouldn't have been pulling marathon hours on the forum if our - yours and mine - input wasn't of interest to them. I also know some stuff ain't gonna change, and I accept that. With that in mind, I don't see any major changes that I think "need" to happen to CM:SF, bearing in mind all our technological realities. It is what it is; and for my money, it's a rock solid company-level tactical simulation, with the added advantage that it can't be learned or mastered in 24 hours. That's a good thing.

And I think my rating will go up to 2 based on what you guys in the community come up. More breathtaking maps by George, scenario designs by some of the bright lights out there, maybe someone will come up with his own point purchase system, or a series of "canned" QBs for us to enjoy, maybe even a meta-campaign or two. Give me something good enough, it might even make it up to a 1. But that's me, with my community outlook. For the solo vs AI guys looking for a 1 - we couldn't talk Steve out of taking his eye off of that for a second, so I think you're in good hands.

So let's all move on to the 2nd 24 hours in the life of this game, and see what the future brings us. I'm excited.

[Runyan99]

I judge the basics of the system as solid. CMSF is about as rough as CMBO was when it was released I guess, but CMBB introduced a few gameplay tweaks, and is a classic. I look for this new evolution of CM to improve some as well.

[konstantine]

Going from 3 to 2, probably on my way to one. It's a steep learning curve but that doesn't bother me. The more I play it the more I like it.

[SGT_56M]

After two months in the game. 1.

[Gurra]

1.