Is CMSF Fundamentally flawed beyond patching???

[Charlie901]

Since I've long shelved this title and gone back to CMAK I've come to wonder if the magical 1.05 patch is even going to address some of the glaring issues (which have been stated many times before).

I'm begining to come to the conclusion that it would take a major overhall of the engine, to fix these major issues and that a 1.05 patch isn't going to fix this title to where we all expect it to be.

B.T.W. One of my biggest gripes is that Armor and AFV's can't breach thin, 2ft walls. What's up with that. :mad:

So to get through an urban map I have to zig zag right into an enemy trap even though I know their there waiting for my units to zig zag on by...

I feel like a rat in a maze.

[Hev]

Do i think BFC will continue to patch and work on Shock Force until the comunity is happy (well most of us) yes i do. I certainly dont think theres anything they couldnt fix!

I would guess by Battlefronts absence on the forum and the few hints weve had that the .05 patch is going to be big.

Personaly ive got a niggling feeling that they are going to throw a surprise our way, something big and shiney to put the smiles back on all our faces (and remind us why BFC are the best developer out there)

And on the flip side, youve only got to look at all of Ubisoft's recent games to see how bad after support can be -.-

[kevinkins]

Wow. In two posts - glass half empty; then glass half full. Humanity in a nutshell all at the BFC forum. I think Hev is more on target. But what do I know?

Kevin

[Beastttt]

I have been able to breach walls

there is a thread in the tactics section that discribes how to do it

[MarkEzra]

Hev's got it right...To hear some folks talk you'd think that BFC's looking for a fast buck and faster exit. To hear some folks talk you'd think that good wargaming companies are on every street corner. To hear some folks talk you'd think that the world is just full of people begging to play pixel war. To hear some folks...why it's enough to make you go deaf.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Hev's got it right...To hear some folks talk you'd think that BFC's looking for a fast buck and faster exit. To hear some folks talk you'd think that good wargaming companies are on every street corner. To hear some folks talk you'd think that the world is just full of people begging to play pixel war. To hear some folks...why it's enough to make you go deaf.

Nature abhors an information vacuum.

-dale

[Sivodsi]

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

Hev's got it right...To hear some folks talk you'd think that BFC's looking for a fast buck and faster exit. To hear some folks talk you'd think that good wargaming companies are on every street corner. To hear some folks talk you'd think that the world is just full of people begging to play pixel war. To hear some folks...why it's enough to make you go deaf.

Nature abhors an information vacuum. </font>

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Beastttt:

I have been able to breach walls

there is a thread in the tactics section that discribes how to do it

Not with troops but with vehicles....

I'm not going to have a squad blow a two foot high wall under heavy fire so my M1 can breach it when it could just roll right over it.

[Thomm]

Flawed beyond patching? I hope not!

I also hope that these LOS bugs go away:

I am currently blasting my way through "Barbado" and ... I am having a blast! Nothing like blowing up a wall that shields an opfor house and to blast away at them point blank! With zero friendly casualties!

CM:SF will be great when they sorted out the bugs!

Best regards,

Thomm

[handihoc]

Yep, BaBado (Return to) is a phenomenally good battle (as it also was in its original form). Even with some LOS/LOF and occasional manouevreing bugs, this is a real nail-biter in single play. It's one of the battles that really shows what SF is capable of - and once 1.05 is out I reckon/hope even those last bugs will be gone.

[dynaman200]

Personally I think the disconnect between 1 to 1 representation and not doing the LOS checks that way was a big mistake, it magnifies the LOS/LOF problems that already exist.

I do think they will eventually get the bugs patched and the game working well, I'm not sure I'll be along for the ride, especially if WEGO continues to play second fiddle to RT play.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Charlie901:

a 1.05 patch isn't going to fix this title to where we all expect it to be.

I don't know that we all expect it to be in the same place - but I do believe that it is "beyond patching" (my central premise is that "we" wanted CM and haven't got it; yes, I know that a lot of people here couldn't care less), and have recorded my thoughts here.

I welcome factual correction, and acknowledge that it may be required.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by dynaman200:

Personally I think the disconnect between 1 to 1 representation and not doing the LOS checks that way was a big mistake, it magnifies the LOS/LOF problems that already exist.

Does a squad have a single eye (or pair) to see or one for each squad member?

If it's one point, which I believe to be the case from what I've seen in game, where is it? Sometimes it seems to be a foot eye, sometimes at belt buckle level, center of mass fro the squad? Tied to nominal point at ground level? What???

[securityguard]

I always felt this game was one big experiment and the next major engine update will fix a lot of nuisances. No amount of patches could fix some of the more fundamental things, like Quick Battles and what not.

I imagine it like CMBO to CMBB, except now it's more like CMBO Alpha to CMBO.

[C'Rogers]

No amount of patches could fix some of the more fundamental things, like Quick Battles and what not.

While I agree that the fundamentals are here to stay why do you list quick battles. That seems like it would be one of the easiest things to change (unless you are looking for random maps I guess).

[dalem]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No amount of patches could fix some of the more fundamental things, like Quick Battles and what not.

While I agree that the fundamentals are here to stay why do you list quick battles. That seems like it would be one of the easiest things to change (unless you are looking for random maps I guess). </font>

[MarkEzra]

Flaw, no. Fundamental, surely. Would I like to pick my troops...you bet.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Flaw, no. Fundamental, surely. Would I like to pick my troops...you bet.

Personally I think it's a flaw, and a major one. How anyone expects to have a WWII tactical game where one cannot easily (i.e. QB) experiment with ad hoc force arrangements is beyond me. Talk about zero shelf life.

-dale

[Sirocco]

QB's will be improved for CMx2:WW2. That was mentioned two or three times. I would expect that to mean wider selection options, though not random maps.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

QB's will be improved for CMx2:WW2. That was mentioned two or three times. I would expect that to mean wider selection options, though not random maps.

Unless I can pick a single 57mm ATG, a couple of bazooka guys, and a rifle platoon, and have them defend a crossroads against a German armored panzergrenadier company + support, it ain't really improved.

Let alone having to dig through someone else's maps.

Yuck.

-dale

[Thomm]

Without caring too much about QBs, I cannot help but make the following observation:

The reason, why QB troop selection is so restricted is, that the OOB is very important in CM:SF, right?

Now, especially playing Veteran, because Elite is too much clicking for me, I fail to see any significant influence of the OOB on gameplay at all! Heck, I do not think I ever paid any attention on how my companies are organized, I just spread them all over the place, without any penalty that I am aware of.

I wonder, if others perceive this differently?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Paper Tiger]

Sirocco is right. Steve has already stated that players will be able to cherry pick forces for WW2 just like in CM1. I can understand Steve's reasoning for not having it in the modern era but nevertheless, the existing system still gives you some very bizarre forces, especially if you pick smaller battles. But there's no reason to believe that this won't be changed later.

I really don't understand why people are complaining so much about the lack of random maps though. (Yes, acrashb, I followed your link and read your web site) Have you guys played around with the scenario editor? Have you any idea how CRAP a random map would be? What about it's AI plan? Never mind the flavour objects. Just try randomly throwing a few objects onto a board in the editor, raise and lower the elevations randomly, stick a wall here, a palm tree there, a mosque there. What an enormous pile of sh@te! If Battlefront gave us randomly generated maps , you'd be complaining about how crap they were and shouting angrily in this forum for them to fix this 'broken' feature. It's not like you have to make them yourselves, there are plenty available to be downloaded free of charge because some people actually enjoy designing them.

Now, I'd really like the facility to pick the map I want to play on instead of having one randomly assigned to me. I imagine we'll get that faily soon, patch or module, I don't care.

Finally, acrashb, while I might agree with you about some things on your web site, your remarks about the Strategic AI are completely wrong. Since you don't have the game, I suppose you can't explore it for yourself and are just relying on what you read here for your info. There are no phase lines or trigger points (we wish!). It is actually a very good system and a vast improvement over the AI in CM1. But it's still limited. No matter how elaborate it becomes, some people will still complain about it because it can't play like a human player.

[Thomm]

Something else, not to be overlooked:

Where are the mod tools?

Wasn't it a joy to watch which brilliant mods were created for CMx1?

It attracted a lot of creative people!

This is certainly missing from CMx2 at the moment!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

QB's will be improved for CMx2:WW2. That was mentioned two or three times. I would expect that to mean wider selection options, though not random maps.

Unless I can pick a single 57mm ATG, a couple of bazooka guys, and a rifle platoon, and have them defend a crossroads against a German armored panzergrenadier company + support, it ain't really improved.

Let alone having to dig through someone else's maps.</font>