The funny thing is that just about everything in CMx2 was requested by CMx1 players.

[stikkypixie]

If they coded in enough actions and triggers, than TacAI will only be a matter of tweaking.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

If they coded in enough actions and triggers, than TacAI will only be a matter of tweaking.

From what I've seen, they need to tweak it into existance

[thewood]

Now that is just being mean!

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Edit to add: How is it not btw?

Well first it's up to the other guy to prove his point not me to have to prove a negative.

Anyhow, one quick example is terrain. The UI no longer offers any clue if your unit is in grass brush, or whatever the case might be. So you have to really zoom in and see if your squad should be in proper cover.

[dalem]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Force selection

JasonC and Cherry picking. Linky

Oh come on. I've done jillions of QBs against the AI and a passle of people and not ONCE has "cherry picking" been an issue. But even if it has, so bloody what? As I've said before, the people who want to club seals are free to, the people who want to play historically are free to.

-dale

[JonS]

Dale, the point is not whether you personally championed a change to [insert hot button here].

[dalem]

Edited - misunderstood Jon's question, answer no longer relevant.

-dale

[ September 06, 2007, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jon is correct. The people that are claiming that nobody requested the major feature changes between CMx1 and CMx2 must have been reading different Forums than this one. The call for 1:1 started before CMBO was even released! It is probably the single most consistent request we've had over the years. To say it isn't there is simply contrary to fact.

Now, of course nobody suggested we add bugs. That's just a childish statement and really can't be taken as anything but. Bugs are by their definition not features in any case, so when I say people requested the major features that are found in CM:SF bugs aren't a part of that.

Design flaws... I don't see any. Things that need to be fixed (bugs), tweaked (rough edges), reintroduced (missing) I do see. I don't see any problems with that happening, though the reintroduction of CMx1 features will be minimal and mostly limited to feedback stuff within the game. Still, there are some fairly significant things that will wind up looking more like CMx1 (QBs being the primary one).

I also keep posing the question to you guys... if we didn't change anything as requested, then what would CM:SF look like? CMAK with modern units? Bah... we could have done that in half the time and been out of business by now. So pardon me if I'm not seeing a fully rational counter argument to the changes in CM:SF.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, check that. From what I can tell the people opposed to the changes in CM:SF wanted CMAK with CMBO setting. Great, we sell a few copies and go out of business. Hmm... perhaps that is why we didn't go that route? Could be Could also be that it would have been so boring, so unchallenging to us that we'd rather have stuck forks in our eyes instead. Without the passion and drive to work we'd just pack up and do something else with our time.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I also keep posing the question to you guys... if we didn't change anything as requested, then what would CM:SF look like?

Steve-

I think you're setting up a teeny bit of a straw man there. For myself, and I can only speak for myself, I completely understand and agree with your desire to do modern first so all you have to do is turn off different things in later modules that cover earlier things. Doesn't matter that the theater doesn't interest me, it's a sound and logical decision.

Likewise I'd be a fool to suggest that better graphics and more detailed physical modeling aren't a must.

Big things I'd have or would have asked for, were anyone asking?

- Finer terrain: got it.

- True Area Fire: did not get it, as far as I've read.

- Mobile models having physical existance, i.e. blocking LOF/LOS, real collisions: dunno if it's in.

- Better arty modeling: in like Flynn, if I'm reading the boards correctly.

- SW flexibility: things like recrewing HWs, better LATW possession, etc.: I think this is all set now.

- "Better" AI at all levels: yeah, I want a pony too, but it seems that there are serious AI deficiencies currently. I am ignorant of whether that is bugged, designed, or a mix.

Now, as to things I would want to lose from CMx1 - well, nothing.

I said it 7 years ago and I'll say it again - 1:1 that isn't really 1:1 is a detriment, not an asset.

Anyway, I could type a full essay of what I wanted vs. what you marketed and the where's and why's, but the above is the nuts and bolts.

-dale

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Actually, check that. From what I can tell the people opposed to the changes in CM:SF wanted CMAK with CMBO setting. Great, we sell a few copies and go out of business. Hmm... perhaps that is why we didn't go that route? Could be Could also be that it would have been so boring, so unchallenging to us that we'd rather have stuck forks in our eyes instead. Without the passion and drive to work we'd just pack up and do something else with our time.

Steve

Well...I hope that is not what is happening to CMSF...sell a few copies and go out of business. I have difficulties to imagine the appeal of this game to either hard-core CM1 players or "new crowd". But that's just my impression.

And I have been wrong many times in past... Used to be against 3D model during old forums when you were called BTS and CM was called Beyond Squad Leader. Wanted counters and whatnot... :cool:

I promise to give CMSF a good consideration after few patches more. Currently it's just annoying me. My "suspension of disbelief" is bit strained watching 1:1 presentation doing what the units do now.

[OG_Gleep]

I just wanted to speak my mind on the subject of QB's. Many of us never cared a lick about what would have actually been fielded vs what we wanted to field in QBs. The rarity system I thought did a nice job of balancing it a bit, but honestly, what I wanted out of QBs was the chance to see what x could do against y. I played more QB then any portion of the game.

The main reason I play wargames is the "what if" factor. If things played out exactly like history, it would be quite boring. If I want realism, we have campaigns and scenarios. QBs were always about what "I" want. Now I have to fiddle with the scenario editor to achieve those results, and thats just something that I'm not going to do.

If there is a group who prefer this style, fine, give it to them. But don't nix the entire point system. Make it an option in QB's to use the old system or the new system.

If and when we get additional forces, mixing marines and army, or coalition forces (UK, France, etc.) would be a blast. It would be a blast because its setup the way I want it to be.

If I have a choice between being historically accurate, or fun...I'll go the fun route every time. The trick is making it HA and fun at the same time, and that can be achieved. But give us back the control to setup hypotheticals and watch the results.

It is a great dissapointment that its setup like this. Originally I had thought it was because the lack of options on the US side compared to what we had in previous CM games. But to find out that it was because it was for realism is too much.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jon is correct. The people that are claiming that nobody requested the major feature changes between CMx1 and CMx2 must have been reading different Forums than this one. The call for 1:1 started before CMBO was even released! It is probably the single most consistent request we've had over the years. To say it isn't there is simply contrary to fact.

I don't see anyone claiming that 1:1 was not requested. It certainly was. The issue with that is that the terrain and buildings don't match the 1:1 units.

Design flaws... I don't see any. Things that need to be fixed (bugs), tweaked (rough edges), reintroduced (missing) I do see. I don't see any problems with that happening, though the reintroduction of CMx1 features will be minimal and mostly limited to feedback stuff within the game. Still, there are some fairly significant things that will wind up looking more like CMx1 (QBs being the primary one).

I'm glad to hear you are going to change QBs. Though I'm a bit alarmed by what you said earlier about it being fixed only for the WW2 module.

Is adding WeGo for multiplayer in your plans? Or making the available commands visible all at the same time?

[Darkmath]

I don't understand how some of you guys can be sure that the problems we see is due to design.

LOS 8*8 action spot design worse than CMX1?

Come on, do you remember the tanks getting hit at the edge of a house?

I should remind you the LOS calculation was computed from the centre of intertia of the tank, so the front of tank appearing out from a house corner cannot be detected.

Same problem in CMX2. Not worse in this case.

1.03 solve some LOS issues, not all, but it proves at least tweaks are possible to improve this design.

[thewood]

I understand what your saying, but I never got hit through ground in CM1. It happens enough in CMSF that I notice it. That makes using ridges as cover very difficult. Steve has not clarified if thats a bug, because in the manual it states that it a known feature.

[flamingknives]

Did you not? I did.

Then there was that annoying-as-all-hell feature where a gun situated just behind a ridge was virtually unkillable, since a HE round had to hit the ground beneath it (which was all but out of sight) to be effective. Meanwhile, the gun was free to provide effective return fire.

[panzermartin]

Guys..Los/Lof system of CMx1, although abstracted, was the closest to perfection I could imagine. The hull down guns you say were actually a realistic feature. Mortars were your friends in that case anyway. No shooting through solid terrain, 99% of times I could judge if I was hull donw or not, you could estimate if trees were blocking Los or not with some gaming experience and despite all this you occasionaly had some nasty Lof surpises once in a while that made the game more fun. Definetely a solid game system. CMSF on the other hand is totally unpredictable. I mean losing an Abrams from an underbelly shot witht the shell going through a berm?

I've seen stock maps with painfully detailed ditches that are just eye candy since they are so fine crafted that are actually non existent for the LOS/LOF grid. I played a scenario the other day which main's terrain feature was a berm defended by fighters on a reverse slope. I got 2 techincals hit from 300m away with small arms fire through what it seemed a 3m high berm, the vehicles being totally obscured by the terrain. It happens way too often to the point I dont trust the visual representation of the game anymore. And thats way too bad for a 1:1 simulation. 1.03 seems better but further fine tuning is needed imo.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Guys..Los/Lof system of CMx1, although abstracted, was the closest to perfection I could imagine. The hull down guns you say were actually a realistic feature.

No, because the guns were modeled with no height. So although the behavior was correct with regards to HE hits near them (normal SOP for guns in normal positions), the chance to take them out with direct hits was unrealistically low (aka none).

[dalem]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

I don't understand how some of you guys can be sure that the problems we see is due to design.

LOS 8*8 action spot design worse than CMX1?

Certainly seems to be 100% worse, yes. Whether it is worse, or more accurate, or better, or apple pie, or a star-bellied Sneetch, it is presented as worse on the screen.

So it's worse.

[/qb]

Come on, do you remember the tanks getting hit at the edge of a house?[/qb]

Sure. I remember a few "huh?"s in CMx1. But I accepted them because I knew we were dealing with abstractions.

I should remind you the LOS calculation was computed from the centre of intertia of the tank, so the front of tank appearing out from a house corner cannot be detected.

Irrelevant. I'd already accepted the level of abstraction presented to me in CMx1.

Same problem in CMX2. Not worse in this case.

1.03 solve some LOS issues, not all, but it proves at least tweaks are possible to improve this design.

Actually, until Steve has the time to write the essay about LOS/LOF he metioned, with diagrams explaining what this "action point" stuff is and what it does (especially as compared to CMx1), I'm not sure any of us really understand how LOS/LOF really works in CMx2.

Like I said, maybe it is a million times more accurate/better than before and I'm just missing the boat. I can believe that easily. But right now it just smells wrong.

-dale

[Dennis50]

I don't get it ...yet ....and the only thing I smell is the home made chili the wife is making right now. I'm a simple man you see.

Regards,

Gunz

[thelmia]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

CMSF on the other hand is totally unpredictable. ..

I've seen stock maps with painfully detailed ditches that are just eye candy since they are so fine crafted that are actually non existent for the LOS/LOF grid...It happens way too often to the point I dont trust the visual representation of the game anymore. And thats way too bad for a 1:1 simulation. 1.03 seems better but further fine tuning is needed imo.

There are currently too many immersion- breaking bugs that ruin the feel of the game. I expect that they'll be fixed eventually. Right now new players get frustrated by things that clearly shouldn't be happening, like getting shot through solid objects or wierd LOS issues where an enemy is hidden when he should clearly be visible. Things like not being able to see enemy infantry on a roof when looking down on them from a higher building. Or balconies that can't be shot at because LOS to the center of the building is blocked.

This is normal bugginess, though. The technical bugginess is being vanquished. I'm playing the game flawlessly now thanks to the patches and forum. I expect the rest will come in time.

[ September 09, 2007, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: thelmia ]

[GSX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Actually, check that. From what I can tell the people opposed to the changes in CM:SF wanted CMAK with CMBO setting. Great, we sell a few copies and go out of business. Hmm... perhaps that is why we didn't go that route? Could be Could also be that it would have been so boring, so unchallenging to us that we'd rather have stuck forks in our eyes instead. Without the passion and drive to work we'd just pack up and do something else with our time.

Steve

Stevo

Although I realise that you love being involved in making wargames right?

I also realise, unlike some, that you and your family has to eat and without sales of SF this would be more difficult.

I admit I was disappointed at first by the SF setting. However I took the plunge and bought the game. Sure it is buggy, and some of the Bugs do detract from it, I have no doubt that they will eventually be ironed out.

However, for me, I feel like I have finished the game. Now this is nothing bad, I have finished many a game in the past. I think that $40 for a months entertainment is fine. SF lacks the depth of CMAK for example, and before anyone tells me, I know why already. But it is this depth that keeps me playing AK when SF has sat on my HD for about 2 weeks and no activity.

Unless a module came out that included vastly differing forces I dont think I will be buying it. But I will buy a ww2 version, thats for sure, or maybe an Israeli one too.

You must have the figures that we dont see and I suspect that you have sold SF to a lot more guys than bought BO and I also think that this vast majority has probably never played CM before. I'm not asking you to ignore a lot of these old sweats here, but I do understand that they are not necessarily your priority audience.

You continue to make interesting games and I will continue to buy them and thats the bottom line for me. You have my money, so invest it into you next project, or hire some more bloody staff, put one of them into updating CMAK to have a proper westfront battlefield and weapons and everyone will be happy.

Cheers...