Manx Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Here's some of my finding's after spending some time with CM:SF. I'm not all that concerned about pathfinding issues, because i believe that BFC (Charles) will deal with that, but: CM:SF is a "simulation" that supposedly represents 1:1 combat between US and Syrian forces in a hypothetical conflict in the near future. To me, 1:1 combat means that each element (1:1) of your, and the OPFOR, should be able to play some sort of part on the battlefield. This isn't happening in this game. Yeah, i'm seeing 1:1 soldiers on the map, but what's the point if most of them don't appear to be doing FA ? 10/10 i see soldiers not firing back when in clear LOF to the enemy and getting killed. If the OPFOR has LOS & LOF why aren't my men doing something other than "spotting" and getting wasted? I spend precious minutes in a time limited scenario trying to get squads into what i think are good firing positions and advantage points, only to find that once they get there, most of them are unable to fire anyway due to the way that LOF/LOS seems to be calculated (my men are clearly in LOS & LOF because they are being shot at, and dying very quickly without shooting back?). What's the point in carefully guiding a modern day US Infantry squad with all the weaponry they have at their disposal into a good firing position if once they get there only 1 or 2 out of 9 guys actually appear to engage in combat? Your squad is geting decimated at the back and they just sit there "spotting" ?? A pointless exercise if you ask me. Beta-Testers - was this issue of 1:1 and what you were actually seeing on the BF mentioned at any stage? Patch 1.04 - does it address this? Pathfinding - i believe you will fix this Some TactAI behaviour - As above 1:1 representation - Game design issue. Serious flaws (IMHO). If not, please tell me how this is going to be fixed. If i'm wrong in what i am saying, then please feel free to educate me! [ September 27, 2007, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Manx ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 You'll be much happier with the Infantry model with 1.04. 1 or 2 out of 10 firing sounds like you are out of M4's effective range and the SAW's are what you are seeing. IMHO without having seen your screens or save files. And to answer your topic.... No 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Thanks Huntarr, 1.03 seems to place a 9 man squad into roughly 3x3 rows. The front guys (sometimes) fire back, but the other SIX just sit there spotting!? They get killed as well! Has this been addressed in 1.04? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Huntarr: And to answer your topic.... No I believe it is at the moment with 1.03. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Huntarr: You'll be much happier with the Infantry model with 1.04. 1 or 2 out of 10 firing sounds like you are out of M4's effective range and the SAW's are what you are seeing. IMHO without having seen your screens or save files. And to answer your topic.... No Sorry for another post, but whats the effective range for the Syrians? They're killing my guys well enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Sarge: Okay, is everybody here? Squad: Yes Sarge! Sarge: How far did we move? Squad: 10 meters Sarge! Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective. Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us? Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy. Pretty much sums up my experience with small unit tactics in CMSF to date. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Runyan99: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sarge: Okay, is everybody here? Squad: Yes Sarge! Sarge: How far did we move? Squad: 10 meters Sarge! Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective. Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us? Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Catsack Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I agree with manx. It seems like CM:SF has a 1:1 battlefield, but with troops not intellegent enough to survive in it. Unless the squad is inside a building, troops don't seem to take advantage of any cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I can't look into the future, and maybe i'm wrong, but Huntarr sorry, i don't believe you, things will change fundamentally. How could the infantry behavour be solved, without solving the underlying restrictions? The 8mx8m grid? In the meanwhile i assume, the engine is indeed flawed, because of the counterproductive design desicions, to use 8x8m action spots and reduced LOS calculations, but to represent action at 1:1. This can never fit together, since there is by far not enough resolution, to give the engine enough information and freedom to place the pixelsodiers in a realistical manner. Fact is, while you play it's obvious, that the 1:1 representation is just a gimmick, and that is, what makes CMSF unplayable for me. Anyone remembering BFCs credo, that realism comes first? A tactically completely uselss 1:1 representation should be enough to recognize, that CMSF has left that path of success. Getting rid of the 1:1 would solve many problems, or at least make it not jump into your face while playing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptWasp Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 When I play CMSF I enjoy it, really. I like realism, but I accept some limits too (maybe because I'm a software engineer?)... I play as overall commander, so I don't worry about micro-managing the squads; if they get destroyed, I think they have been caught by an ambush... patch 1.04 will improve infantry, so IMHO the better thing to do is to wait and see... These are my 2 cents only 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust1 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Manx: QUOTE]Sorry for another post, but whats the effective range for the Syrians? They're killing my guys well enough. [/QB]Use smoke while assaulting in clear terrain or while dismounting...let your US troops fire only when in good cover... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 CM:SF is very realistic. In the Falklands the battle for Goose Green it took all day and they only covered a few miles, why? Answer, because in a real battle most troops spend most of the time not doing anything and certainly not blasting all there ammo in the first five minutes. I suspect part of the problem is people who have spent to much time watching movies where for obvious reasons all the down time is skipped over or edited out. As for most FPS and RTS for similiar reasons most games have to much access too to much ammo, too many opponents to close together and little attention to Command and Control, moral or fatigue. And just don't get me started on "medipacks". There may be problems with the graphics I'll admit, some of those not active not looking to be doing the right things like taking cover, but the movement, ammo use and overall pace of CM:SF is pretty close to real combat. It's just that people aren't used to it as they've been conditioned by sitting in front of screens, blasting at waves of enemies. The fact is when you move a squad it does take time to reorientate ourselves and figure out whats going on and even that your being fired at. Oh and if your guys keep getting creamed, try assuming your doing something wrong and change tactics rather than blame the game. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: CM:SF is very realistic. ... There may be problems with the graphics I'll admit, some of those not active not looking to be doing the right things like taking cover, but the movement, ammo use and overall pace of CM:SF is pretty close to real combat.So what's the benefit of 1:1 then, if the present 1:1 action is the unrealistical part, while the rest, like ammo useage and pace, does not need graphical 1:1 at all? What is expected from player is, to forget about the graphical representation and think abstractly. Great, therefore we have a 1:1 representation. In CMx1 it was exactly the other way round: the graphial representation showed fewer things, and the player logically and naturally imagined the rest. That works. Not the other way around, that unrealistical action on the screen should be ignored. The not working 1:1 representation destroys everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptWasp Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The 1:1 representation enhances greatly the immersion in the scenario... personally I like the abstractness of the old CM titles, but I never liked the three men squads. I love CMSF representation, and still I admit some abstractness. For me, it's the most realistic modern combat simulation ever... or it will be when the 1.04 patch arrives 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topo Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 same here. saluti 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 My understanding is that LOS and LOF do not always match. LOS is from the individual, but LOF is tha action point. Is that correct? If so, is that realted to what we are seeing with the infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I think it is exactly the other way round: LOS is from the action point, LOF is from/to the individual. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: CM:SF is very realistic. In the Falklands the battle for Goose Green it took all day and they only covered a few miles, why? Answer, because in a real battle most troops spend most of the time not doing anything and certainly not blasting all there ammo in the first five minutes. I suspect part of the problem is people who have spent to much time watching movies where for obvious reasons all the down time is skipped over or edited out.That's apples and oranges, though. In these tactical situations you want your squads to put out firepower. It's no use holding onto ammo while you're being decimated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I must admit I don't like the idea of having LOS and LOF handled differently. If an individuals LOS is clear to a target, but his LOF is blocked, how can he re-position himself to clear LOF? I'd like to see that explained. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Exactly!!!, and if I am not mistaken...most of the Goosegreen infantry assault action took place at night and without the lavish use of night vision equipment that you have today. Men were basically firing at muzzle flashes and sounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Double Post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The Falkands comment is the stuff I talk about with these forums all the time. Taking a flaw/feature and trying to, after the fact, rationalize it as a design decision. I am skeptical that the parade ground formation of CMSF squads was designed to reflect the realities of modern wasfare. I have had the same problem with ridges...I can get one or two guys up to the ridge, but if I try to get the squad positioned across the ridge, the entire squad goes over the top and gets wiped out. That's when enemy fire is coming through the ridge 6 meters below the top. What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 One more thing...If I have a squad with one soldier sticking past a corner, that one soldier can be shot by the enemy? Does this happen to the AI? If I see one soldier sticking out of a corner, can I target him. Does the LOF or LOS go to him or the center of his squad's action point? Can the AI react to this. I want to know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.Actually, this makes a lot of sense, since spotting does not kill, but firing does! The correct question, IMHO, is: if LOF is indeed traced individually, why do shots through terrain occur? Hopefully, because it is a bug that will be fixed in 1.04. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: One more thing...If I have a squad with one soldier sticking past a corner, that one soldier can be shot by the enemy? Does this happen to the AI? If I see one soldier sticking out of a corner, can I target him. Does the LOF or LOS go to him or the center of his squad's action point? Can the AI react to this. I want to know. Me too!! Some answers can be found in the 'Urban Ops' thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=71;t=000112;p=1 I cannot wait to see how situations like the one tested there will play out in 1.04! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.