All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Manx:

It should be noted that Steve has already said that they plan to do major work on pathfinding and LOS/LOF issues in 1.05.

This is why we should collect evidence instead of insulting each other, the game, or BF.C.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Huntarr]

What scenario was that? If it was not an original scenario, how could the testers find it?

Again Steve stated that 1.05 was a detail tweaking patch. If you would lose your inflammatory rhetoric you would be considered a positive contributer to making the game better instead as it stands now you sound like a negative little a$$hat. Try to tone down the "Fundamentalist" flawed commentary and just contribute to helping.

[Thomm]

Whom are you writing too?!??!

:confused:

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

Huntarr, i was just about to mention the inappropriate use of the term 'fundamental' too. Its like there's a perverse game to find a thread title that'll drive the most prospective players away. After the game fries your CPU or kills your airdale puppy, then we can resurrect the word 'fundamental', okay? Mgs grazing a few mm through a 3-D hillside is not exactly fundamental.

[Thomm]

Well, to be honest, in one of my quick tests one half of a squad died, because my supporting BMP was not able to target a building that was visible with 1/3 of its length while the remaining 2/3 (including the action point) were hidden behind another building.

My inability to suppress or kill the enemy shooting from the totally exposed side of the building can, indeed, be interpreted as a fundamental flaw.

Let me add that as soon as I moved the BMP closer to uncover the action point and gain LOS, it was promptly blown up (the BMP, that is).

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Rollstoy,

Whom are you writing too?!??!

Falco, no doubt. He's about one post away from being banned here. Not because he is being critical of the game, but because he fits the description of Troll so very, very well. Note that I'm not saying that Adam is close to being banned, even though I think he is still throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, I think he's being narrow minded and is still showing an unproductive attitude, but he is within the rules of the Forum so he's not going anywhere (despite his previous flameout). Falco is as useless as he is abusive, so he's in a whole 'nother category of poster.

Now, onto the thread

Huntarr, i was just about to mention the inappropriate use of the term 'fundamental' too.

Agreed there. The term "fundamental" means it can not be fixed. That isn't the case here so it is factually incorrect to use that term. Whatever is wrong can be fixed. But we have a LOT of things that need our attention and LOS/LOF is just one of them. It's important, for sure, but think about this...

If Version 1.04 had perfect LOS/LOF, and not one other change to it from Version 1.03, how much crap do you think we'd be taking right now? Little? None? If LOS/LOF were the only significant issue to deal with that would surely be the answer. But framerates, pathing, TacAI responsiveness, etc. are all very important issues as well. For many I think these issues were the most important to go after, which is what we did with version 1.04.

What I'm saying is perspective is needed. There is no "fundamental" flaw in CM:SF, just rough edges and imperfections that we need to address. That's all... nothing more than that. Overal LOS/LOF works fine. There are still issues with them, and they do affect gameplay when they crop up, but they do not negate all the other great stuff going on in the game. If we let LOS/LOF remain the way it is right now there would be cause for concern, but we are not going to stop fixing things we see that need fixing. So there is no need to get feathers all ruffled and behave poorly. It's JUST A GAME and we've shown a clearly responsible attitude and responsiveness to supporting it.

Steve

[Darkmath]

I don't see anything fundamentally flawed, or at least more flawed than in CMX1 in this issue .

I remember that I used to drag move waypoint up to a metre to have the best hull down position in CMAK days, so I can live with it in CMSF, even though it is 1:1.

[Battlefront.com]

Darkmath,

I don't see anything fundamentally flawed, or at least more flawed than in CMX1 in this issue .

I remember that I used to drag move waypoint up to a metre to have the best hull down position in CMAK days, so I can live with it in CMSF, even though it is 1:1.

Oooo... be careful there, buddy! You're starting to sound like me, what with the reminders of the problems CMx1 had and all of that. The people unhappy with CMx2 do not want to have perspective, so you're attempts this will will likely get you dismissed as a "fan boy" because anybody that attempts to see the big picture can't be anything but.

Steve

[ October 03, 2007, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oooo... be careful there, buddy! You're starting to sound like me, what with the reminders of the problems CMx1 had and all of that. The people unhappy with CMx2 do not want to have perspective, so you're attempts this will will likely get you dismissed as a "fan boy" because anybody that attempts to see the big picture can't be anything but.

Steve

That's unfair Steve. Some of us see the big picture just fine, we just disagree whether it's worth hanging in our living room or not.

-dale

[flammenwerfer]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

I remember that I used to drag move waypoint up to a metre to have the best hull down position in CMAK days, so I can live with it in CMSF...

Flaw? I thought that was a feature.

[ October 03, 2007, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: flammenwerfer ]

[Darkmath]

Imagine how realistic was homogenous LOS degradation through wood tiles in CMX1.

In a abstracted world, LOS is an approximation. So changing waypoints metres by metres in savegames in order to fire upon an AI enemy tank that he can't see you is somewhat cheating in a such environement IMHO.

However, it does in a 1:1 rep. But it takes time to fix the LOS/LOF issues.See how things has changed between 1.01 and now. It proves it is not related to core engine.

As for being a "fanboy" who "get it", I stopped played CMSF for a while because I can't live with all the issues tackled I could have encountered if I played often, and because the performance were bad on my PC and because I have a lot of work now.

But I dislike how 4 years of development can be bashed so easily. One could not spend 4 years in programming to release a thing that he knows everybody would hate. here's why.

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

That's unfair Steve. Some of us see the big picture just fine, we just disagree whether it's worth hanging in our living room or not.

I'm being totally fair. Falco labels anybody that LIKES the picture hanging in their living room as a "brown nosing fan boy". In other words, he is arguing that there is no room for opinion... you either agree with Falco's point of view or you are wrong. Remind you of any political administrations? Adam is also having difficulty putting things in perspective with the rest of the game and what came before it. I know you reject the notion that complaining in a vacuum is utterly pointless and counter productive, but holding CMx1 to no standards and holding CMx2 to real world standards is as unfair as it is irrational. What is fair and rational to say is something akin to "I liked CMx1's more abstracted system better than CMx2's less abstracted system". Though in accepting this, you must also accept that others may disagree. The more someone thinks that their OPINION is FACT, the less they are willing to accept that another point of view is possible.

I'll illustrate this by using two lines from Adam made in his initial post:

As it stands, at 1.04, it is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected.

In a vacuum his comments stand quite well on their own. But what happens when I inject a little bit of context using his logic? This is what one gets:

"As it stands CMx1 is totally unrealistic and has fundamental design flaws which have NOT been improved or corrected in 10 years of development"

All I am doing is carrying his logic, completely unchanged, to a relevant contextual connection. If he really can't enjoy CM:SF for the reasons he has stated, then I am completely baffled by how he could have played CMx1 beyond the demo. Because if these things are really THAT important to him, then CMx1 fails to meet his standards far more so than CMx2. However, since I know he loved CMx1 then there is a bit of a disconnect in his standards. He is entitled to be inconsistent like this, but then his line of argumentation is simply an opinion and not something greater than that.

Another example of opinion:

"All the problems of this very abstracted terrain/LOS model are compounded by the 1:1 infantry representation."

CMx2's terrain/LOS model is FAR less abstracted than CMx1's and many felt the "Moe, Lary, and Curley" Squads compounded those abstractions further. So again, why wasn't Adam1 hopping mad at us for CMx1? According to the logic he is using he should have slit his wrists before trying to play any of the previous CM games since the "fundamental" problems were so much worse than they are in CMx2.

For me, the minor inconsistencies in CMx2 are not difficult to live with even as they are now compared to CMx1. Does that mean CMx2 is perfect and CMx1 is crap? No, it simply means that for me the benefits of CMx2 far outweigh its drawbacks when compared to CMx1. Since I loved CMx1 then by extension that means I should love CMx2 even more. And I do Of course this is my opinion, but since I am stating it as such and NOT presuming that you (or Adam or Falco) must agree with me, I am being intellectually honest and consistent.

Steve

[thewood]

//sucking up on

Steve, after all this, you really should go into politics. That's not an insult. You are very good at arguing your points.

//sucking up off

Now get back to massaging Charles.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CMx2's terrain/LOS model is FAR less abstracted than CMx1's

In CMx1 it is not possible to shoot through terrain but in CMSF it is happening.

[thewood]

I have come around, although not completely, to Steve's view of CM1 compared to CM2. It is only because of 1.04. Before that, I did think there were some "fundamental" problems with CMSF. I see significant progess being made, even in LOS/LOF issues. Right now, I can march a troop of scouts down a road, get ambushed and see results similar to what I would expect in CMAK.

Adam,, out of curiosity, I would like to know what you think the fundamental errors are in CM1, or is it perfect? I think CMSF is at about the technical maturity of CMBO at release. So compare it to that.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Dirtweasle]

It's a bitch playing CMSF in WEGO is what I've come to find out, it seems to me the tacai is more suited or fine tuned toward micromangement in RT mode.

Is that feeling after playing a while pretty common?

[thewood]

Since 1.04, I have very good success with WEGO, as long as its not a tight urban environment. If it is urban, you really have to move in small, well planned steps.

I find the opposite in RT. If infantry are involved, I am pausing much more often than in WEGO. I played Wadi Scouts in WEGO and it took maybe 90 minutes. Played in RT and it actually took a little longer.

[Truppenfuhrung]

I never pay attention to that kind of issue so they never bother me.

Generally speaking, those kind of problems never ruin my strategy.

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

Steve, after all this, you really should go into politics. That's not an insult. You are very good at arguing your points.

No insult taken! Funny thing... the only enemies I have in my small home town, that I know of , are because of local politics. I'm one of the few in the audience willing to stand up to the irrational "I want something for nothing" types that demand more services and lower taxes in the same breath. I make a few points and watch them seethe with anger because they don't have any answers to my questions, nor comeback to me pointing out their flaws. I do this politely and in a reasonable tone, which I think pisses 'em off even more. Bullies don't like having to be rational (quick edit... I'm not calling anybody here a bully, though only because Falco can't be taken seriously enough )

Adam,

Fundamental problems means game basics, as opposed to something technical like textures or hardware problems, or something frivolous like doodads. For players that see the value of CM in the simulation of reality, or, the strategic side, bullets going through 100m of solid earth is fundamental. Units not being able to take cover in trenches is fundamental. Units not being able to hide is fundamental. Units not being able to fire at what they should be able to shoot is fundamental. Units not having proper preservation is fundamental.

But since it is impossible to have everything simulated completely realistically, then you must be willing to accept something less than that. You were willing to accept FAR less than that in CMx1, so just understand that you are not using a universally consistent method for judging what you see in CMx2. I'm not saying you have to like the way things are now, I'm just saying you should consider the context of your objections in a more open minded manner. It would lead you to more accurate analysis too.

You seem to be of the opinion that troops in trenches are not being protected. Take that scenario you tested, pop it into the editor, and remove the trenches. Then compare those results to the way it is now. I'll be quite surprised if you are able to maintain the position that trenches aren't doing anything.

Fundamental does not mean "never can be fixed". I'll always have high hopes and low expectations for CMx2. Steve drives me crazy with his spin so I'm just ignoring him now.

What you call "spin" I call counter argument. You've made some pretty strong statements, so if you don't want them challenged then I suggest you don't make them.

Steiner14

In CMx1 it is not possible to shoot through terrain but in CMSF it is happening.

True, but why is that true? Because the entire environment was extremely simplified. A horse and buggy is a much more simple means of transport that has a lot less to go wrong with it than a car. If you don't mind the roughness of traveling by horse and buggy, nor the limitations in what such transport can provide, that's fine. But to complain that the car doesn't run on hay or that the radio doesn't always get your favorite rock station doesn't mean the horse and buggy is a superior system

thewood,

I have come around, although not completely, to Steve's view of CM1 compared to CM2. It is only because of 1.04. Before that, I did think there were some "fundamental" problems with CMSF. I see significant progess being made, even in LOS/LOF issues. Right now, I can march a troop of scouts down a road, get ambushed and see results similar to what I would expect in CMAK.

Thanks for that, though you are risking becoming a "fan boy" now

Adam,, out of curiosity, I would like to know what you think the fundamental errors are in CM1, or is it perfect?

I'm curious too! I think CMx1 is the best series of wargames to ever come out, but it has plenty to be critical of. However, as now I say that criticism needs to be made in the context of other games, especially wargames. In it's day it was compared to Steel Panthers, Close Combat, and various FPS/RTS games. CM:SF should also be compared to what is out there in the marketplace. Using the real world as the sole standard only shows that CMx1 sucked badly at simulating the real world and CM:SF sucks slightly less.

I think CMSF is at about the technical maturity of CMBO at release. So compare it to that.

I agree that CM:SF will be viewed in a similar light next release as CMBO was after CMBB. From a technical standpoint CM:SF is only the beginning of CMx2, just as CMBO was for CMx1.

[ October 03, 2007, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sirocco]

Another vote for fundemental not meaning irredeemable. There's hostility here on both sides which isn't helpful in moving forward.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Fundamental problems means game basics, as opposed to something technical like textures or hardware problems, or something frivolous like doodads. For players that see the value of CM in the simulation of reality, or, the strategic side, bullets going through 100m of solid earth is fundamental. Units not being able to take cover in trenches is fundamental. Units not being able to hide is fundamental. Units not being able to fire at what they should be able to shoot is fundamental. Units not having proper preservation is fundamental.

Fundamental does not mean "never can be fixed". I'll always have high hopes and low expectations for CMx2. Steve drives me crazy with his spin so I'm just ignoring him now. I'll report what I see but I'm not going to debate about it. If anyone thinks the game is enjoyable as is I am not going to tell them otherwise.

No, fundamental means it can never ever be fixed. That it's something inherently wrong. But LOS/LOF issues can be fixed according to BFC, so they're not fundamental.

[ October 03, 2007, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ]

[KNac]

OMG, is much simplier than that.

Setup a battle in CMBB (or CMAK) and setup a similar battle in CMSF. I know, different eras, but do it proportionally, it can be done mroe or less.

Now play both battles in a similar and you will see which is the result. Flaws exist, but are NOT as bad as some want to belive.

P.S: Shooting through terrain IS NOT happening *all the time*. Repporting issues is fine, doing it a negative retoric way is unnecessary.

Peace!