So where are we after about 3.5 months?

[thewood]

Originally posted by Percopius:

This forum is dead? A forum with 83000 posts is dead? Too funny.

This is kind of using stats to lie. This forum has been up for a few years and used to be very busy. As a matter of interest, I think it was busier before release than after. Now look at posts since release. Every now and then you might get a post count spike of 30 or 40 in a day due to some controversial thread or a patch being released, but I have actually seen 6 or 8 hours go by with nary a post in sight. That is with CMSF coming up on 4 months since release.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[thewood]

Originally posted by Adam1:

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

depth in what way, just curious.

It's the smaller scale of the fights. We're still not clearing buildings like you would in the original R6 but the process of moving a platoon or squad from one location to another is more involved now. Furthermore with the elite level FOW you also have to keep your units together if you realistically would like to control them. There is nothing forced about the depth, it is pretty much optional if you can get your imagination into what is going on in the model. You need to be able to visualize what is happening on the screen in your own terms. When that happens, and you can relate the tactical environment to (particularly) real places on earth you can see what is going on more deeply than CMx1. That is the extra depth, that extra modeling of another layer. The fact that the terrain is less abstracted and the squads aren't abstracted at all can be a good thing if the terrain is detailed enough, your orders are detailed enough, and you really get your head around what is happening. There are still lots of cases where the game doesn't react the way it should, mostly due to bugs or buildings being treated as single "tiles". But play something like Ba Bado and you notice the process of attacking a group of buildings is more involved than the CMx1 equivalent, even if more annoying sometimes. </font>

[thewood]

Originally posted by Adam1:

The forum is dead, but it is because one side does nothing but bitch and the other side never posts anything productive or instructive.

Adam, once again I think you nailed a great point. But that may be what kills CMSF. Something has to fill the vacuum BFC is leaving. Its either complainers or fanbois. Since we know BFC isn't going to come in and answer legit questions, threads immediately start to spiral with guessing and complaining.

[dalem]

Originally posted by thewood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Adam1:

The forum is dead, but it is because one side does nothing but bitch and the other side never posts anything productive or instructive.

Adam, once again I think you nailed a great point. But that may be what kills CMSF. Something has to fill the vacuum BFC is leaving. Its either complainers or fanbois. Since we know BFC isn't going to come in and answer legit questions, threads immediately start to spiral with guessing and complaining. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

It's hard to work up a discussion about the details when basic flaws in the program prohibit you from exploring them.

[istari]

Agree with sgtgoody. I was eagerly looking forwards to CMSF to learn more about the tactical capabilities of various weapons systems. Yet too often I'm left wondering if a result is due to a bug rather than the underlying modeling. In CMX1, I had faith in the underlying mechanics, so I could focus on how MG fire was being modeled or the balance of speed vs armor with a Hellcat, etc.

Chris

[C'Rogers]

But nowhere is anyone chewing over the details - as I said before, where are the guys complaining about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the .45 ACP or 5.56mm?

I thought this was more just do to a lack of grog level of knowledge of modern warfare in comparison to WWII.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by dalem:

Who is playing this game?

-dale

That's actually a good question. I consider myself a die-hard CM fan.

When I got CM:SF I was really thrilled about all the new features and possibilities. Started playing the campaign but quickly switched to creating maps and scenarios. Run into lots of problems with the AI and got frustrated. Tried to continue the campaign, but honestly, playing the AI has always been kinda boring for me. Unfortunately I got quickly fed up with multiplayer due to me missing all the fun in Realtime mode, and WeGo being a royal pain in the butt compared to the perfect game system in CMx1. And then there's still the "US vs Syria"-thing that doesn't really interest me...

During the development of CM:SF I really hoped that BFC wouldn't fix the things that were already working fine in CMx1. Above all I hoped that they would not "overcomplicate" the game. The moment I saw the GUI I knew my worst fears had come true...

So, where am I right now? I don't consider CM:SF a bad game. Not at all. But compared to the fun I had (and still have) with CMx1 it's simply a collosal disappointment at the moment. I actually haven't touched the game for the last two weeks.

[ November 11, 2007, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Have you noticed that not many of the old crowd are making scenarios for this one. With CMx1 you recognized the same designers for all three games. I would love to see some things from Kingfish, Treeburst, or Franco. I have some from rune but he is about it except for the ones on the disk. Mostly new designers with CMSF. Not that it's bad, I just though it was interesting.

[hoolaman]

The other thing about grog threads is that its hard to be an armchair warrior and argue with guys who are currently using the gear without sounding like an idiot.

The old WWII grog threads allowed everyone to pontificate without any great risk of a veteran coming in and saying they were talking out their ass.

But there are a few groggy x is over/underpowered threads, but none of these seem to evoke the kind of passion that might see these issues recognised and even patched.

[Janster]

Simply doesn't work too well tbh...

Janster

[dalem]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The other thing about grog threads is that its hard to be an armchair warrior and argue with guys who are currently using the gear without sounding like an idiot.

The old WWII grog threads allowed everyone to pontificate without any great risk of a veteran coming in and saying they were talking out their ass.

But there are a few groggy x is over/underpowered threads, but none of these seem to evoke the kind of passion that might see these issues recognised and even patched.

Oh I understand, and I think you make an excellent point, but I mean, none? For that matter where are the guys saying "this is correct!" or "this is incorrect!"? There are some, but not at the grog levels we have for WWII. Do folks that have "done it" even want to buy and play a game about "doing it"? I dunno.

Still, there are known "debates" that go on RE the modern stuff, they're just not going on here. Maybe that means nothing. But it sure is a type of traffic that is missing.

-dale

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

The other thing about grog threads is that its hard to be an armchair warrior and argue with guys who are currently using the gear without sounding like an idiot.

The old WWII grog threads allowed everyone to pontificate without any great risk of a veteran coming in and saying they were talking out their ass.

But there are a few groggy x is over/underpowered threads, but none of these seem to evoke the kind of passion that might see these issues recognised and even patched.

As a guy who has used this gear I would love to get into a real tactical and technical debate. However, as I said, it is hard to do when the game doesn't work well enough that you can be sure that what you are seeing is a reasonable simulation of the situation on the ground.

You might also be careful when giving too much credit to guys just because they are using or have used the equipment. Many soldiers know little more about their equipment than how to check it out of the arms room.

I would love to be able to discuss infantry stuff with the guys who are doing it now and then see how close the game can come. Right now, though, it is pointless.

[SgtMuhammed]

I find it disheartening that many of the old guard are becoming dissillusioned with not only the game but BFC as well.

[M1A1TC]

Just wait until 1.05 patch comes out. Everyone will be singing praises

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by dalem:

A huge gap is left by the lack of grog posts.

and the AARs.

Which brings me to;

Originally posted by dalem:

Who is playing this game?

-dale

I played GRAW 2 nearly two hours Saturday, and at least four Sunday. My longest session playing a game since CMSF was released, and it wasn't spent playing CMSF. That never happened with CMx1.

Still checking in here looking for news but that's about it.

A good AAR like those from Fionn, Kiwi Joe or that Scout PL fellow, anything like that from the "olden days" of CMx1 is non-existent.

[SgtMuhammed]

The old Parabellum / Goodale AARs were classic.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Just wait until 1.05 patch comes out. Everyone will be singing praises

didnt we say that about 1.04 too

[M1A1TC]

Pretty much everything I say is sarcasm with a small note of optimism

[GriffinCheng+]

I have objections against the game is not finished. It is working but need, more or less, a lot of places which does not seem to work according to spec, i.e. patches are needed. A gain of optimism is good. I still have (some) faith in BFC.

Am I playing the game? No, too busy with life and many games are piling up: HL2E2, Bioshock, M&B, Jade Empire, Fabel, and the list goes on. Nonetheless, still manage to play a game of CMBB PBEM once a day...

[Conte Malaspina]

I recently bought the game notwithstanding the weak historical set-up and my bias against modern warfare. I have been playing the game (RT mode) for about two weeks now and to my surprise I find it's fun, great fun in many aspects, and I'm learning a lot (losing most of the games but that's ok!).

But incredibly enough I have already finished all of the scenarios that come with the game (except the campaign). I also own all CMx1 games (bought them all as soon as they came out) and I still have to finish playing a couple of operations here and there, from one side or the other. Not to speak of all the mods and scenarios out there.

So apart from the various glitches, bugs, shortcomings etc. this game is severely short in scenarios, or rather developers have perhaps put too much faith in third party scenario designers, who until now do not appear to be particularly forthcoming. The editor is way too complicated for me to tinker with and I lack the time to learn how to use it properly.

So yes, I'm still playing CMSF but I can certainly see the end of it, maybe another week or so. A far cry from the 7/8 months it took me to play the CMBO scenarios from the U.S. side only. I'm afraid this game will become obsolete for me very soon indeed, which is a great pity.

enrico

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

...Jade Empire...

Brilliant game! One of the few games I couldn't stop playing until I finished it. If you're a fan of chinese movies like "Chinese Ghost Story" you will LOVE this game! Bioware at its best.

[Frenchy]

My big disappointment for CMSF is as follows. I will not consider RT - since I have no inclination of playing the game that way.

I play the game via PBEM - it's all I have time for.

1. Lack of scenarios - like Conte who posted previously - I just don't have the time to tackle the editor.

2. Broken QB System - it seems this was added as an afterthought with no adequate playtesting of this section. It certainly needs a big overhaul to make it work.

3. Lack of ability to pick own troops as in the CM1 series during QB play.

I will not give up on the game yet - I certainly hope that BFC will address the QB shortcomings with the upcoming 1.05 patch.

I don't think we can fully blame BFC for all the problems in the game. I believe they were contract bound to release the game by "x" date - even though they tried to delay it...they ran out of time. I believe a post by BFC stated this early on after the game was released.

After some of the heated comments posted on this board and some of the heated replies - I am not surprised that they have backed off. They weren't going anywhere, neither side apparently not wanting to "listen" to the other.

In the end it's frustrating for all who have played the CM games from day one and perhaps for those that also programmed and worked on the game.

I guess "when they are ready" we'll hear a response.

[thewood]

I want to make sure people in this forum see Adam1's AAR in the tactics forum. I know there are some people who only look at this forum, so:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=71;t=000151

I think this shows CMSF pretty much warts and all. To me it shows both the potential brilliance in the new engine, as well as the frustration with some things not working right. Other AARs seem to really gloss over the issues and don't really show some of the significant changes over CM1 in the same AAR. This one strikes a good balance.