Jump to content

Marine Module as Referendum


Recommended Posts

Gameplay-wise, it'd be best to add a bunch of RED and/or obsolete BLUE units and systems. Most actual shooting happens with not-quite-latest-and-greatest equipment in places you probably never see in headlines.

Great seller potential for such add-on? Hah.

It's kind of how CMBB didn't sell that great althought the setting is hands down the most interesting in the series..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My interest in CMSF has gone from excited to zero. I don't play the game at all anymore. CMSF is NOT what I had expected. BF has a lot of work to do before I would think of buying another product from them. I don't plan on buying future modules either, until WWII comes out.

The primary issues I have with CMSF as it is are:

1. WEGO system is broken, taken a back set to RT.

2. TCIP play not possible in WEGO

3. RT is NOT realistic except at the smallest level.

4. Quick Battle system is very weak. The CM1 system game CM long legs and allowed lots or replay.

5. Many smaller problems, like no indirect fire smoke amoung other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lot of complains, and encounter numerous bugs, some features are not up to par, more features I would like to added, BUT it is the best game on the market at this time. We all would like it to be better and are inpatient for the fixes, but as a Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six veteran, let me tell you that when game companies get BIG, either by sells or influx of investors, they go for the console market.

Nothing’s wrong with the Segas and the Playstations of the world, but it is a fact that games get dumber when they are redesigned to fit the console, and the PC versions suffer – WE SUFFER…

So, let’s try to be supportive of a team that loves the subject of tactically accurate games as much as we do, cut them some slack, and hope that will help them produce more exciting material for us to chew on… smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by PeterFromLA:

Nothing’s wrong with the Segas and the Playstations of the world, but it is a fact that games get dumber when they are redesigned to fit the console, and the PC versions suffer – WE SUFFER…

Isnt that just a myth? The PC market has never been stronger. And, most people that post here have been avid BTS fans for many years, and supported them plenty with word of mouth and money. I refuse to support a product that is rightout flawed and poor (IMHO). I dont owe BTS nothing, Ive paid for all their products and got others to buy them.

Ofcos, they dont owe me nothing either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a CMBO/CMBB/CMAK-fan, the the sole reason I haven't purchased CMSF is that I don't have a PC to play it on at the mo' :( . So I'm left with the forum feedback to form an opinion, which again requires separating the legit feedback from those whining like old women over trivial details.

Anyways, "fix or do sumfink" seem to be most pressing issue: Major gameplay related bugs (AI, LOS e.c.t.), not minor graphics glitches. The latter ought to be fixed as well, but obviously not given top priority (duh!).

Like it or not, adding RT was a really good idea. Sure, the player gets information overload when juggling larger units but that's unavoidable unless you want to loose most micro-management features (actually not such a bad idea, but sort of a separate game). It adds some fast-paced spunk to the game, and you're not forced to use it anyway.

WeGo, notably MP (apparently) doesn't work as well as in CMx1, and it really should. WeGo is still the choice for "serious" tactical gameplay.

BFC has always supported their games well. There is no indication that CMSF will be different (and it would be business suicide anyway). The bugs will be fixed. And common decency dictates that such fixes are distributed for free via patches, not requiring the purchase of any sequel, expansion or module.

Which scenarios and units to include in future is a subject (and thread) onto itself. I'm less concerned with which units to include and more concerned with quantity, quality and speedy production. Marine module? Who gives a f... as long as we get lots of new (good) content in a timely manner.

Originally posted by PeterFromLA:

...as a Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six veteran...

...Segas and the Playstations of the world...

So, let’s try to be supportive of a team that loves the subject of tactically accurate games as much as we do, cut them some slack, and hope that will help them produce more exciting material for us to chew on… smile.gif

Dude. You said "Sega". You must be, like, really old ;) . Nah, just kidding. And you're right, it's basically support BFC or be left with C&C...

BTW, if you long for the R6 and GR of old, check out BlackFoot Studios. EDIT: Link removed.

[ November 08, 2007, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like CMSF and it is gradually replacing CMBB and CMAK. As I spend more time with the game, it is obvious that it is an improvement over CMx1 in many areas, although there are still some rough patches.

I would expect the USMC module to sell less than CMSF, since expansion packs invariably sell less copies than the core game. I will probably buy the USMC module as well as all the follow on modules.

The only black cloud I see in CMSF's future is a lack of staying power. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are still going strong because of a large and organised multiplayer community with many clubs such as Band of Brothers , of which I am a member (we are always looking for new members, by the way ;) ). In CMSFs case however, from what I can see at the usual sites, there seems to be little interest in multiplayer CMSF games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by c3k:

[QB] Hmmm,

Years ago I bought a game called "Trespasser", loosely based on the book and movie "Jurassic Park". The game was horrible. THEN I read the reviews. All the reviews panned the game. They told me it was horrible. I swore I'd never buy a game without reading a review on it first.

I have played that "Trespasser" game also and liked it even it was little "unplayable"... nice boobs that women had :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by luderbamsen:

Like it or not, adding RT was a really good idea. Sure, the player gets information overload when juggling larger units but that's unavoidable unless you want to loose most micro-management features (actually not such a bad idea, but sort of a separate game). It adds some fast-paced spunk to the game, and you're not forced to use it anyway.

WeGo, notably MP (apparently) doesn't work as well as in CMx1, and it really should. WeGo is still the choice for "serious" tactical gameplay.

BFC has always supported their games well. There is no indication that CMSF will be different (and it would be business suicide anyway). The bugs will be fixed. And common decency dictates that such fixes are distributed for free via patches, not requiring the purchase of any sequel, expansion or module.

The main problem I have had with CMSF is with some design decisions of the game itself. I don't see how going to Real Time was an improvement at all. I like it as an option to draw in a younger crowd more used to that type of game, but as you said yourself, serious tactical play is better suited to WEGO. After all, this is a nich game, and will never have the sales of the larger publishing houses. I think BFC should have stuck with what got them where they are, and not tried make a product that tried to please both worlds, RT click fest and serious wargamers.

Other design decisions just seem stupid or very short sighted, for example the Quick Battle format. For the life of me, I cannot understand how or why they came up with such a lame method of doing QBs. The CM1 system was good, not perfect but it worked well, and has allowed CM1 to live long past the life span of most other games. Using a simular system could not have been that hard, and would have been the smart thing to do.

Using Syria as the Theater of Operations, even after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, who thought of that one? If you wanted to do modern, then why not stick with realistic events, and Iraq/Afghanistan are real wars against a real enemy. Only saving grace I can see from doing CMSF modern is perhaps (if they survive), they can get the WWII game right.

TCIP play, which I think is the real future of all games, and if you really want to appeal to the younger players out there, then include a well thought out method of online play. I have said from the beginning, that fetures like optional RT or WEGO should be part of the choices allowed players. Have a centralized site to to facilitate online play, simular to Rome Total War or HypperLobby for online flying.

Game orders and interface seem poor, a step backward over CM1 in tactical orders options with fewer real options availible. I loved the "Movement to Contact" order in CM1, it allows you to move tactically and you knew your guys would stop, engage and not move anymore. I'm sure it was not included because playing in RT, you can "stop" your forces yourself. Now we are forced to become Stryker drivers or Squad Leaders for all vehicles and squads. How is that an improvement? Why was a "Follow Me" not added? I have seen this request over and over in the forums from very experienced CM players. It is a good idea, would save time and make game play faster, WTF over??

The Order of Battle options in CMSF are weak compared to CM1. You get what you get in CMSF, while in CM1 I can "buy"/"build" almost any type of Task Force. In CMSF I have to mess with the "Equipment Quality" constantly to get the equipment mix I want, and still don't get exactly what I want. Again another example of poor design or decision making, or a lack of CHOICE.

What I consider smaller issues related to the internal programing due to the new engine, I think and will be fixed sooner or later. These seem to be the most posted on issues, lack of smoke from IDF, LOS/LOF issues, terrain and so on. I pose the question, if this engine is so great, then why do we have LESS options on play instead of more, why do we seem to be missing several key aspects of CM? Give the player MORE options, not less. Even if the designers disagree with my preferences, don't take out options or orders, give the player MORE options. This can only help sales, no hurt them. Give us more CHOICES.

I have been playing CM since 2002, and have a LOT of games under my belt, with 95% against human opponents, either PBEM or TCIP. The current AI in CMSF does will not give this game the "legs" CM had because so much is designed for RT and playing against computer, not human opponents. Human Opponent play is what will give you the word of mouth, and make this new engine great. I cannot count the number of times I have recommended CMBB or CMAK to other wargamers who had never heard of it, and end up buying the game. In it's current state, I cannot do the same for CMSF.

I guess I "just don't get it."

Zemke

[ November 08, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zemke:

The main problem I have had with CMSF is with some design decisions of the game itself. I don't see how going to Real Time was an improvement at all. I like it as an option to draw in a younger crowd more used to that type of game, but as you said yourself, serious tactical play is better suited to WEGO.

After all, this is a nich game, and will never have the sales of the larger publishing houses. I think BFC should have stuck with what got them where they are, and not tried make a product that tried to please both worlds, RT click fest and serious wargamers.

Other design decisions just seem stupid or very short sighted, for example the Quick Battle format. For the life of me, I cannot understand how or why they came up with such a lame method of doing QBs. The CM1 system was good, not perfect but it worked well, and has allowed CM1 to live long past the life span of most other games. Using a simular system could not have been that hard, and would have been the smart thing to do.

Using Syria as the Theater of Operations, even after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, who thought of that one? If you wanted to do modern, then why not stick with realistic events, and Iraq/Afghanistan are real wars against a real enemy. Only saving grace I can see from doing CMSF modern is perhaps (if they survive), they can get the WWII game right.

TCIP play, which I think is the real future of all games, and if you really want to appeal to the younger players out there, then include a well thought out method of online play. I have said from the beginning, that fetures like optional RT or WEGO should be part of the choices allowed players. Have a centralized site to to facilitate online play, simular to Rome Total War or HypperLobby for online flying.

Game orders and interface seem poor, a step backward over CM1 in tactical orders options with fewer real options availible. I loved the "Movement to Contact" order in CM1, it allows you to move tactically and you knew your guys would stop, engage and not move anymore. I'm sure it was not included because playing in RT, you can "stop" your forces yourself. Now we are forced to become Stryker drivers or Squad Leaders for all vehicles and squads. How is that an improvement? Why was a "Follow Me" not added? I have seen this request over and over in the forums from very experienced CM players. It is a good idea, would save time and make game play faster, WTF over??

The Order of Battle options in CMSF are weak compared to CM1. You get what you get in CMSF, while in CM1 I can "buy"/"build" almost any type of Task Force. In CMSF I have to mess with the "Equipment Quality" constantly to get the equipment mix I want, and still don't get exactly what I want. Again another example of poor design or decision making, or a lack of CHOICE.

What I consider smaller issues related to the internal programing due to the new engine, I think and will be fixed sooner or later. These seem to be the most posted on issues, lack of smoke from IDF, LOS/LOF issues, terrain and so on. I pose the question, if this engine is so great, then why do we have LESS options on play instead of more, why do we seem to be missing several key aspects of CM? Give the player MORE options, not less. Even if the designers disagree with my preferences, don't take out options or orders, give the player MORE options. This can only help sales, no hurt them. Give us more CHOICES.

I have been playing CM since 2002, and have a LOT of games under my belt, with 95% against human opponents, either PBEM or TCIP. The current AI in CMSF does will not give this game the "legs" CM had because so much is designed for RT and playing against computer, not human opponents. Human Opponent play is what will give you the word of mouth, and make this new engine great. I cannot count the number of times I have recommended CMBB or CMAK to other wargamers who had never heard of it, and end up buying the game. In it's current state, I cannot do the same for CMSF.

I guess I "just don't get it."

Zemke

You have what sounds like very valid points (haven't really played CMSF), and of course they should be addressed: AI, LOS, quick battle, unit composition e.c.t. And of course these issues should be addressed by BFC. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're working on it as we speak.

But why blame it on RT? If some of the really good CMx1 features are missing and needed, BFC should fix it. End of story. Never mind what the cause is. And who cares what the scenario is (there was a looong discussion about the back story a while ago)? As long as we get to shoot people and blow s... up.

TBH, it sounds to me like you want CMx1 with improved graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Panzer76:

I agree with Zemke.

BTW luderbamsen, I think it may help your understanding if you had actually *played* the game you are discussing.

If I argued his points on the deficiencies of CMSF then you'd be right (arguing the finer points of the game without having played it would admittedly be pretty stupid) But I'm not arguing those. I'm sure all of his points of critique (LOS, AI, whatever) are spot on, and I agree that they should be fixed. Q.E.D. you're wrong.

Why blame the problems out on RT? What good would it do to scrap RT to fix the problems in WeGo? If WeGo needs to revert back to what it was in CMx1 (or something very similar) then make it so. Just ask for a WeGo fix and stop taking it out on RT.

And we've been over the scenario setting ad nauseum, in which the current scenario (loose backstory) was by far the most popular among forum members. Personally, I'd want a mid-80's Fulda Gap scenario, but that ain't gonna happen (it'll never sell, apparently). I wouldn't mind an Iraq scenario either but that would be a bit too sensitive for the tasts of some so that ain't gonna happen either.

I feel somewhat guilty because this is going to look like I'm taking it out on you an Zemke when in reality you're only two among many. And pardon me for being very blunt:

Stop whining like old women. Tell BFC what needs fixing, be it bugs, glitches or gameplay deficiencies. Complain when it still isn't fixed with the next patch. Tell BFC what you want and don't want for the next module (a lot of you want WW2, I presume, which is fine with me and as good a suggestion as any). But stop moaning about RT being included, that it wasn't the WW2 setting you wanted, that you don't like the Syria scenario and so on, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

Again, pardon my language and please don't take this personally. smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by luderbamsen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

I agree with Zemke.

BTW luderbamsen, I think it may help your understanding if you had actually *played* the game you are discussing.

If I argued his points on the deficiencies of CMSF then you'd be right (arguing the finer points of the game without having played it would admittedly be pretty stupid) But I'm not arguing those. I'm sure all of his points of critique (LOS, AI, whatever) are spot on, and I agree that they should be fixed. Q.E.D. you're wrong.</font>
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

I agree with Zemke.

BTW luderbamsen, I think it may help your understanding if you had actually *played* the game you are discussing.

If I argued his points on the deficiencies of CMSF then you'd be right (arguing the finer points of the game without having played it would admittedly be pretty stupid) But I'm not arguing those. I'm sure all of his points of critique (LOS, AI, whatever) are spot on, and I agree that they should be fixed. Q.E.D. you're wrong.</font>
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by luderbamsen:

But all this "why Syria?", "I don't want RT", "it should have been WW2" stuff; can we PLEASE give it a rest? Been there, done that.

Look, I dont mind it having RT as an option, I prefer it when I soslo play. I dont mind the location, I dont mind the setting, I dont mind any of these issues as they have no significant impact on the *core* issues. And, most people on this forum does not mind that either.

What they *do* mind, is the core issues around this. I wont repeat them all, since you no doubt have read all about them.

What Im saying is that some people try to paint the discussions on this forum as a thing between the extremist no-RT, hard core grog guys and the sensible, "just a few bugs" guys.

And it is not. Lets not pretend it to be like that either. And dont insult the intelligence of the people who post here to act that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

But all this "why Syria?", "I don't want RT", "it should have been WW2" stuff; can we PLEASE give it a rest? Been there, done that.

Look, I dont mind it having RT as an option, I prefer it when I soslo play. I dont mind the location, I dont mind the setting, I dont mind any of these issues as they have no significant impact on the *core* issues. And, most people on this forum does not mind that either.

What they *do* mind, is the core issues around this. I wont repeat them all, since you no doubt have read all about them.

What Im saying is that some people try to paint the discussions on this forum as a thing between the extremist no-RT, hard core grog guys and the sensible, "just a few bugs" guys.

And it is not. Lets not pretend it to be like that either. And dont insult the intelligence of the people who post here to act that way. </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the game and it was replacing CMAK CMBB sadly the 1.04 doesn't work on TCP but i wait 1.05 for that.

I think that the marines module will come with more than just new units. I think that in the modules they will add the features that we miss like the better QB generator and a map generator. They will do that slowly so i will buy the marine module.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...