Guest Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Gosh, Napoleon's Campaigns looks like a great game. Thanks for the tip! I was thinking along the lines of a skirmishing game -- not so much the big battles, more the little actions fought along the edges of the campaigns. NC looks like great fun... yet another expense to add to my already overburdened wargaming budget. For me, personally, I don't like having to do work to make games fun. I like random maps. I like AI that can handle itself without me needing to tell it exactly where to go. I certainly appreciate the work that folks put into scenarios, and I enjoy them greatly. Hell, I spent about two weeks tweaking my own massive urban scenario when CM:SF came out... but I would have been happy as a pig in slops with just random maps and decent AI. Honestly, I think my expectations diverge pretty significantly from those of most players (randomness is more stimulating to me than a complex and trying experience, for instance)... but in the one case of a random map generator, regardless of other considerations: I'm happier when games include them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Originally posted by Phillip Culliton: I dunno, Mark. It's not so much that I say "yuck" to user-made maps (except my own, which are invariably workmanlike at best), but that I would say "whee!" to having random maps. I loves me some random maps. In fact, part of my problem with creating computer wargames as a hobby is that I just can't NOT write a map generator. It is a pain, and time-consuming, and sometimes it's where I just throw up my hands and say "non!" and scrap the whole damn project (in fact I tend to evaluate the doability of projects by how easy it would be to write a map gen for them), but always worth it when I manage to finish them. Seriously, if I were to write a Napoleonic wargame (something I was writing up the specs for the other night... we'll see)... I'd create a random map generator for it. It's a sickness. Possibly an addiction? I just like the idea that, with one push of a button, I can be playing on terrain I've never seen before, with new challenges laid before me. Mmmm. Warm and fuzzy. Edit: Hey thewood. Honestly, I don't think BFC has any intention of spending money to "recover" CM:SF this late in the game. They're trying to fix the engine (and perhaps their reputation?) in time for their grogbase to accept CM:Marines, which I'll note maintains the same modern bent that not everyone is looking for. CM:SF improvements are a side benefit I think. I need to set the record straight on Random Map Generators and user made maps 1. I rarely used CMx1 random maps once I got into the editor. But I was happy to have it there for when I felt lazy or when I REALLY wanted a quick Battle. I believe that Dale pointed out sometime back that QB's are called QB for that reason. And he is correct. 2. The CM:SF QB editor seems to have been a late entry and clearly is not up to the caliber of the CMx1 engine. While user generated maps have partially solved the problem a random map generator would be most welcome. Steve has spoken to this point in the past. 3. The Force selection for CM:SF QB is not broken. It's unnecessarily rigid. I'll choose my own forces, if you please. It is nearly a universally held opinion. I figure BFC got that message loud and clear. 4. have confidence in BFC's willingness to create the kind of QB Game program we, in fact, had with CMx1. But I don't loose sleep over it, or think it's a deal breaker. I do play QB's and bide my time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Originally posted by Webwing: But take a look at a user made mission like Babado. You open the mission and while it's pause look at the map. Not much to it. How long did it take to put a few walls, a road a few one storie houses? But man, what a battle!!! Why? There is nothing random there. What took ThePhantom A LOT of time, and thinking was WHERE to put the walls, etc. Where and what forces to have. At what time should they be in place. The tools are simple to use. The hard thing is how to use it to have a great effect. He is still tweaking the mission! No way you can get that with a random generator. Ahh, don't create a fallacy. The fact that designed maps can be good does NOT mean that random maps have to be bad. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Originally posted by MarkEzra: 4. have confidence in BFC's willingness to create the kind of QB Game program we, in fact, had with CMx1. But I don't loose sleep over it, or think it's a deal breaker. I do play QB's and bide my time. Sorry, but Steve has stated on multiple occasions that that is never going to happen for two reasons: 1) The new C&C model apparently makes it impossible to "just plop in" non-TO&Ed units. 2) No way in hell (I believe he said) is he going to devise and deliver a points-based system again. Again, I'm personally appalled at these decisions, but he's been pretty open and clear about them pretty much since Release Day. But as some few (including myself) have speculated, maybe the Cone of Silence and delay time for 1.05 is because Steve has rethought such core decisions. I have no idea but it's theoretically possible. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Originally posted by Adam1: And Steve is amazingly consistent in his ravings, right dalem? Since this is the one topic I myself have been pretty rabid about I think I've read all of his relevant comments (at least in this forum), and although he's made mention that they are going to try and move closer to the CMx1 model QB, he's never backed off of the two statements I've listed above. And "ravings" is a bit strong, I think. I mean, I'm a forum raver, and he's never at the meetings. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra: 4. have confidence in BFC's willingness to create the kind of QB Game program we, in fact, had with CMx1. But I don't loose sleep over it, or think it's a deal breaker. I do play QB's and bide my time. Sorry, but Steve has stated on multiple occasions that that is never going to happen for two reasons: 1) The new C&C model apparently makes it impossible to "just plop in" non-TO&Ed units. 2) No way in hell (I believe he said) is he going to devise and deliver a points-based system again. Again, I'm personally appalled at these decisions, but he's been pretty open and clear about them pretty much since Release Day. But as some few (including myself) have speculated, maybe the Cone of Silence and delay time for 1.05 is because Steve has rethought such core decisions. I have no idea but it's theoretically possible. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I think i already started a thread like this 2 months ago called "Is CMSF fundamentally flawed ??. Nothing new to see here. [ November 29, 2007, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Manx ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Well, it's a different *month*... Honestly, it's almost the lack of anything new to see here that's new to see here. I think people are reacting to the absence of an official "here's what's going on" presence with dismay. On the other hand, said presence probably wouldn't be able to do much to help at the moment, so... go status quo? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing: But take a look at a user made mission like Babado. You open the mission and while it's pause look at the map. Not much to it. How long did it take to put a few walls, a road a few one storie houses? But man, what a battle!!! Why? There is nothing random there. What took ThePhantom A LOT of time, and thinking was WHERE to put the walls, etc. Where and what forces to have. At what time should they be in place. The tools are simple to use. The hard thing is how to use it to have a great effect. He is still tweaking the mission! No way you can get that with a random generator. Ahh, don't create a fallacy. The fact that designed maps can be good does NOT mean that random maps have to be bad. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by Phillip Culliton: Gosh, Napoleon's Campaigns looks like a great game. Thanks for the tip! I was thinking along the lines of a skirmishing game -- not so much the big battles, more the little actions fought along the edges of the campaigns. NC looks like great fun... yet another expense to add to my already overburdened wargaming budget. Don't you download the demo then!!! You'll be some Euros poorer faster than you think!!! --- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by Phillip Culliton: Well, it's a different *month*... Honestly, it's almost the lack of anything new to see here that's new to see here. I think people are reacting to the absence of an official "here's what's going on" presence with dismay. On the other hand, said presence probably wouldn't be able to do much to help at the moment, so... go status quo? Nope. The information vacuum demands filling, and its necessarily filled by ignorance. Is the engine being rewritten? Did pirates kill CMx1? Is BFC bankrupting? Is BFC Erupting? Is it flawed beyond fundamental unflawability? Is Steve really D.B. Cooper? Is the patch real? Is Seanachai inebriated 100% of the time, or just 99%? Is the Skunkworks forum the smokescreen for the real discussion thread about CM development, the Peng Challenge Thread? I mean, we have to yak about something. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Yay Ignorance! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 its bliss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by SlapHappy: Yay Ignorance! SlapHappy, hm, talking about ignorance, any news from the other side? Wait, I'll go there check... And another moment of ignorance: The taxi driver, ignorant of his fate, that you order to go anywhere you like just so you can blow him away to no effect against US armor. Somehow playing Red in this game doesn't have the appeal as say.. commanding a Tiger. -- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Dalem (or anyone else who wants to weigh in), Just a question to fill this information vacuum that we are in. Suppose for whatever reason 1) Random maps are impossible. 2) Point based forces are impossible. Is there some other direction/compromise to either of those two points that you would be happy with? [ November 30, 2007, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by Webwing: What I believe is that this engine is so fundamentally different that it will never generate QBs the way people have come to expect from the CMx1 series. There is a lot more abstraction in CMx1. Much bigger forces, bigger maps, simpler terrain, no enterable buildings, etc. You don't have to autogenerate maps, but there's nothing in a combat engine that prevents you from selecting your own forces (other than BFC's ego) and pick one of thousands of premade maps with some sensible setup zones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing: What I believe is that this engine is so fundamentally different that it will never generate QBs the way people have come to expect from the CMx1 series. There is a lot more abstraction in CMx1. Much bigger forces, bigger maps, simpler terrain, no enterable buildings, etc. You don't have to autogenerate maps, but there's nothing in a combat engine that prevents you from selecting your own forces (other than BFC's ego) and pick one of thousands of premade maps with some sensible setup zones. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 SPWAW and its relatives have a similar QB maker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I think SP might fall into the (admittedly pretty large) category of "more abstracted games with bigger forces". God, I love SP:MBT's campaign generator. Giggidy. (And the original SP's campaign system... I think, as a youngster, I might just have shed a happy tear at the mere thought of such a thing.) Back to your regularly scheduled thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 was it any good --- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 You could argue that any turn-based game with opportunity fire as a major engine component is heavily abstracted. I was looking at unit sizes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Hmm, true. Fair enough, thewood. Webwing... IMO (I understand the question wasn't addressed to me, but hey), it was definitely good. There were some rough edges sometimes, but in general it was quite fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by Webwing: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thewood: SPWAW and its relatives have a similar QB maker. Was it any good? --- </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Apart from the bugs that are always a pain, most of the negative reactions come from expecting CMSF to be CMx1 with modern weapons. I remember reading someone from BF say precisely that. But hey, they have the same name! Are people wrong to expect that? Specially if don't come often to the forum. I enjoy the differences and can have fun with CMSF even with the bugs. Specially since I'm sure they will most be fixed soon. But I can relate to people that expected something else. I just think it might be about time to stop doing so to avoid further frustration. -- 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.