Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Hopefully in a few hours Martin will post the first of three short Blog entries detailing my first experience playing CM:SF "for real" instead of just to kick the tires. It's was a humbling experience, to say the least! Please post discussions here. I'll try and answer your questions as they come up. Steve P.S. I'm posting this now because it is 02:00 here and it's time for me to get some rest. Martin is just having his first cig and coffee, so he should be along to make the post soon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Please post discussions here. I'll try and answer your questions as they come up. was it better than sex? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Still waiting....., ever so patiently 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Well on reading what stood out at me is not only the US forces having superior equipment, but superior numbers. I guess that throws out the theory that the Syrians will be balanced by having far more guys all the time. Are victory conditions modeled yet? The AAR really doesn't state what the acceptable losses are yet. Is it just a test to see how combat works out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 *tap* *tap* *tap* Hello? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 For those who can't find it, it's here. It took me a while to figure out what C'Rogers was reading and responding to! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 It took me a while to figure out what C'Rogers was reading and responding toHeh, sometimes it pays to read the blog. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Victory conditions for Steve seem to hinge on him training his MG teams to break down the tripod quicker. You have been demoted Steve, now get in that door knocker thingy and RTB. Originally posted by C'Rogers: Well on reading what stood out at me is not only the US forces having superior equipment, but superior numbers. I guess that throws out the theory that the Syrians will be balanced by having far more guys all the time. Are victory conditions modeled yet? The AAR really doesn't state what the acceptable losses are yet. Is it just a test to see how combat works out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 *Oliver Twist voice* Is it possible to have any screen-shots in my bowl of bones? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnie Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 That first bone was good and this sounds more meaty, watching this space 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaska. Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 This is an interesting bone, well done for posting this ! Seems like Fog of War will be even more extreme than what it was in CMx1... Which is good. The more realistic the better ! Keep up the good work ! I'd place my preorder already if it was at all possible... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I keep wondering what you guys find interesting so far? Am I blind or what?! To me, the most interesting bit of information so far is: ... to be continued ... Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 No you're not blind, I don't see it either. Nice to have a bit of a bone, but precious little meat on it so far. One thing I will say is congratulations to the Battlefront guys for getting their years of labour to a point where they consider it playable for reals. Thats gotta be a good feeling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnie Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 You know, for people who play a turn-based game, some of you have almost no patience. They have promised more info in a few hours, have some patience and be more supportive of the guys making this game instead of complaining about lack of information. The end product is always worth the wait! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Sounds like you just made a quick battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Winnie, I am all for patience and everything, but I find that being presented with a page of generic setup information and then a description of two soldiers (that are positioned within LOS of the enemy due to a freakin' BUG) dropping from fire from an unseen enemy not all that satisfactory! Maybe the next two (promised) Blog entries will rectify this impression, but until then I ask myself: * why did Steve not wait for the bug to be corrected and start all over? * What is up with this "3 part" approach? Write the thing and post it when it is ready?! Mind that I write all this only because I have to prepare a boring presentation, so I am very sensitive at the moment! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 there was VERY little there to nibble on I am still starving.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnie Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Rollstoy, Ok, only now have i found the actual blog, seeing as it wasnt linked at the top i just was skimming to see when it would be posted here, sorry Anyway, i now know what you mean, although i still reserve judgement until the 3 parts have been completed and then i can properly comment on it Good luck with your presentation btw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 "Since there is no AI except the TacAI (the reactive AI), I expect that I'll have a fun time blasting them and then calling it a night. " That line confuses me a bit. By "no AI except the ...reactive AI" do you mean with this build of the game the strategic part of the AI's not plugged-in yet? What can the game as you're running it NOT do currently? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Originally posted by MikeyD: "Since there is no AI except the TacAI (the reactive AI), I expect that I'll have a fun time blasting them and then calling it a night. " That line confuses me a bit. By "no AI except the ...reactive AI" do you mean with this build of the game the strategic part of the AI's not plugged-in yet? What can the game as you're running it NOT do currently? TacAI but no StratAI, so I'm guessing the soldiers will just sit in their setup positions and shoot stuff that comes within LOS, but the forces won't move around to deal with threats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Originally posted by C'Rogers: I guess that throws out the theory that the Syrians will be balanced by having far more guys all the time.All the time is a very long time indeed. I'm a little confused by your statement though. Why would you assume that the opposition would always have superior numbers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Yes, some interesting clues as to the new C&C modeling in that first snippet. . . Sounds like the 2 MG teams "over the hill" started the scenario completely out of contact with the main force, and Steve was getting little or no spottijng or condition info from them at all, until he re-established contact. That's a big change from CMx1. Very cool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 YankeeDog, I thought along this line at first also, but I think he actually meant moving the camera over the hill! If your interpretation is correct, though, it would be quite a drastic change! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Hmm. . . maybe you're right. The text is ambigous enough to be interpreted either way. Any comments/clarifications from on high? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 This little writeup is not meant to be a full AAR. We're not quite ready for that. This is just letting you guys see what I saw for the first time "playing" the game. There are some nice (and funny) meaty bits in the next couple of entries. We won't leave you hanging for long. Some quick answers... No, there are no victory conditions at all of any sort at the moment (those should be going in soon). Therefore, the game plays out until I either stop it or it crashes We aren't ready to post screenshots yet. We have mostly placeholder artwork in the game right now and are starting the process of pulling it all out. Within a few weeks the game will look completely different than it does now, so better to wait. Fog of War is indeed much more extreme However, the two MG Teams didn't get to spot much *mostly* for the same reason they wouldn't in CMx1 games. They are isolated and getting hammered so their ability to spot for themselves is limited. Since there are no other eyes to see who is shooting at them, their intel is rather poor. If I did have more eyes on the enemy I probably would have spotted something, but the MG Teams might not have been able to target effectively due to Relative Spotting. There is more on this in the other entries. I have no restrictions on where to place the camera. But like CMx1, placing the camera over suspected enemy positions doesn't do anything for me unless I am able to spot the enemy with my own units. And that is the problem my MG Teams were having. We are planning an Iron Man mode where you can only be locked onto your own units, but this is not implemented yet. No, this was not a Quick Battle. That functionality doesn't exist yet. I just was really tired when I put in the Syrian guys and by the time I woke up and went to play it I forgot where they were As for the AI, we think of there being three levels... Tactical (reactionary), Operational (gets units into position), and Strategic (tells the units where to move to). Only the TacAI is functioning right now. It also hasn't been optimized for CM:SF. Most of the weights/variables in it now are off the top of Charles' head because there hasn't been any real testing work done yet. The number of syrians is lower than the number of US troops by probably 50%. However, don't forget the US has an Abrams and a half dozen or so Strykers. The edge of numbers is therefore decidedly on the US side, but the firepower is incomparable. This is part of the US doctrine for quite a while... go in with a smaller troop ratio but an overwhelming advantage in firepower. Steve 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.