I am still having fun

[Omenowl]

Reading so many threads I find it depressing. Yes, I have some of the same complaints, but the difference for me is they are more annoying rather than game breaking.

Overall, I still have fun. I enjoy the simple artillery mangement. I like the fact things move easily. I like the reload options and I do enjoy the ability to reload. I am beginning to appreciate the visual interface to know who has what weapons. I am looking forward to 1.05 and will see what I find a good game even better. I can't wait for the modding tools so I can get much of the same feel as I did for CMx1

[teeps]

+1

[Topo]

I'm having fun too, imho this is a great game (with some problem, but a great game).

Reading the forum i think i'm the last still enjoying it, but now i feel little less alone.

Saluti

[Thomm]

Of course it is a great game!!!!

For me, it is also much more playable than CMx1 ever was because of real-time.

One of the problems is that CMx1 was even "greater" in a number of aspects (kill stats, vehicles can be pushed away, unit self preservation, LOS fidelity, quick battle generator, moving-map-window campaigns, variety of units ...)

I hope they take the time now to make the core system rock solid for patch 1.05. Better take two months more and do it right this time.

One reason for concern for me is the absence of new scenarios over the last week(?). Before, I could download a new scenario daily. Now I am idle. I do not complain, I have enough real life to keep me going, but I cannot help but observe this.

Best regards,

Thomm

[George MC]

I'm working on one Rollstoy - just RL is keeping me busy right now. I hope to have it done for early next week JohnO, MickeyD and aka_tom are testing it for me right now.

Cheers fur noo

George

[Topo]

Rollstoy is right.

Another weak point, imho, is the asimmetrical warfare as a single option; sirians vs sirians or US vs US sound unrealistic for me.

Hope to see more modern red armyes in future addons, and a "non desertic" terrain option.

Yes, user made scenarios are great, thanks for this service.

Saluti.

[Spindry69]

Well said Omnenowl, any problems are just that annoying and not game breaking. My concerns lie more with the longevity of CMSF, it having limited units and no dynamic campaign. Not to mention it's frickin unforgiving and it bothers me every casulty I take. Hmm, I guess that was a compliment.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

I can't wait for the modding tools so I can get much of the same feel as I did for CMx1

Modding tools?

[thewood]

The scenario proliferation concerns me the most. I got spoiled with CM1 with literally dozens of scenarios coming out daily for a period of time. Within the first three months of CMBO's release there were already hundreds of scenarios pumped out. Tournaments were already formed.

With CMSF, there are some good quality scenarios, but not a lot compared to CM1. I have seen only one tournamnet attempted at GameSquad and it was aborted before it got started.

To me its a combination of bugs, a scenario editor that is more complicated, and lack of interest in the setting.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Topo:

Rollstoy is right.

Another weak point, imho, is the asimmetrical warfare as a single option; sirians vs sirians or US vs US sound unrealistic for me.

Hope to see more modern red armyes in future addons, and a "non desertic" terrain option.

Yes, user made scenarios are great, thanks for this service.

Saluti.

If you want something else than assymetric warfare, you have to play blue v. blue or red v. red. You're never going to find two perfectly evenly matched different armies. Even CMx1 didn't have this. End of story.

More units? Different scenarios? Different terrain? Sure. Lots of it, and the sooner the better.

[Topo]

I agree, but Sirians vs Sirians or US vs US sound less realistic than, eg Russians vs Ukraine or Russians vs US.

Russian vs US arent't perfectly matched, but they are less "asimmetrical" than US vs Siria;

The risk IMHO, with US and Sirya only is to play any scenario with an "ambush" or "antiambush" role.

Excuse my english.

Saluti

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by George Mc:

I'm working on one Rollstoy - just RL is keeping me busy right now. I hope to have it done for early next week JohnO, MickeyD and aka_tom are testing it for me right now.

Cheers fur noo

George

That is good news, I was wondering what I would play after I finished "Hammertime".

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Topo:

I agree, but Sirians vs Sirians or US vs US sound less realistic than, eg Russians vs Ukraine or Russians vs US.

Russian vs US arent't perfectly matched, but they are less "asimmetrical" than US vs Siria;

The risk IMHO, with US and Sirya only is to play any scenario with an "ambush" or "antiambush" role.

Excuse my english.

Saluti

Well, yes and no. A US vs. Russia/Ukraine scenario would, at least in terms of one-for-one equipment quality, be somewhat more evenly matched. But in the greater scheme of things it wouldn't really matter. And a US vs. Russia scenario wouldn't be terribly realistic either, at least not compared to US vs. Syria.

Anyways, this is really an issue of BFC business doctrine and strategy. Personally, I would love to see a US vs. Russia scenario, but I'm 95% sure they won't make one.

[Cpl Steiner]

US vs Russia might not be realistic, but Russia vs Syria might be if the Islamist terrorists in the back-story attacked Moscow as well as several Western cities. Look at the Beslan school massacre and Chechnya. This is perfectly possible. Russia might then be on the US side in any invasion of Syria.

I'd ask BFC to put in ultra-modern Russian forces as part of the Blue force mix in a future module and then if people want to game hypothetical clashes between the US and Russia they have that choice.

[SgtMuhammed]

I have lots of fun right up to the point where I get pissed off and turn the game off.

I am trying my hand at the editor right now, trying to create some scenarios based on missions I ran as OPFOR in Hohenfels. I am putting together the maps when I have free time from homework. The editor takes a bit of getting used to but so far I like the results.

My main beef continues to be the infantry model. 1:1 representation is nice but I realize how much harder it is to make 50 guys in a platoon act correctly than to make 4 or 5 units do so. I am also not convinced that even top end PCs have the horsepower to pull this off correctly.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

US vs Russia might not be realistic, but Russia vs Syria might be if the Islamist terrorists in the back-story attacked Moscow as well as several Western cities. Look at the Beslan school massacre and Chechnya. This is perfectly possible. Russia might then be on the US side in any invasion of Syria.

I'd ask BFC to put in ultra-modern Russian forces as part of the Blue force mix in a future module and then if people want to game hypothetical clashes between the US and Russia they have that choice.

Hey, I'm all for it. I just don't think BFC will do much of that. Personally, I'd like a "sandbox" on the side where you can mix n' match and tweak units, but that ain't going to happen.

[rammer4250]

I am also having a great time playing this game.

I like playing the Al Huqf Engagemnet to test the infantry tactics. For the most part the infantry has been reacting the way they should. Once in awhile the soldiers (a squad) when ordered to move to a new building will run around to the front of the building. Luckily they weren't in the line of sight of the enemy so didn't get wasted. But I think that wouldn't happen with more micromanagement and splitting of the squad. That's why I still prefer WEGO. I feel you have much more control then trying to watch everywhere at the same time. And I like the playback feature so you can determine where the fire is coming from. With right tactics I usually don't have many (and sometimes none) casualties. I think this is the best modern game out there and I have played BCT and TACOPs. And this is with the bugs right now. I can only see it getting better.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

Reading so many threads I find it depressing. Yes, I have some of the same complaints, but the difference for me is they are more annoying rather than game breaking.

Overall, I still have fun. I enjoy the simple artillery management. I like the fact things move easily. I like the reload options and I do enjoy the ability to reload. I am beginning to appreciate the visual interface to know who has what weapons. I am looking forward to 1.05 and will see what I find a good game even better. I can't wait for the modding tools so I can get much of the same feel as I did for CMx1

The game is great. The game has gotten better with each patch...and yes it needed to. Some say that 1.04 made this game "purchase-able"...I wouldn't disagree, but neither do I exactly care. I love the dual options of RT and WEGO. I play both but do scen testing in RT....MUCH faster. The editor is so far ahead of old CM to be no comparison. The new AI editor allows me to be attacked by an AI far more crafty than Charles alone can ever be. And come at me 5 different ways and different groups all with different times, attack/defend/advance orders..! Can't do that in old CM...No way to actually order the AI. The arty is a dream to work. The graphics are great and have reached the point that I remember why I stopped paper board gaming and played micro armor instead. And finally The immersion quality while playing is excellent. I see my losses and recognize the cost of "politics by other means" when the medic is working on my wounded. CM:SF may have started as an ugly duckling but has advanced steadily towards a beautiful swan. Thank you BFC.

[ November 08, 2007, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by thewood:

The scenario proliferation concerns me the most. I got spoiled with CM1 with literally dozens of scenarios coming out daily for a period of time. Within the first three months of CMBO's release there were already hundreds of scenarios pumped out. Tournaments were already formed.

With CMSF, there are some good quality scenarios, but not a lot compared to CM1. I have seen only one tournamnet attempted at GameSquad and it was aborted before it got started.

To me its a combination of bugs, a scenario editor that is more complicated, and lack of interest in the setting.

I can tell you that Scen design takes more time and it should. Old CM scen design was pretty simplistic. Now we have a lot more options at our disposal... Testing a scen that has 5 different attack AND defend options...well you get the picture. Scen are far more interesting in the end and, when multiple plans are used, much, much more re playable. On a personal note: I am putting the finishing touches to "Last Defense" another old Beta CMBO.

[thewood]

I completely agree with you on the scenario tools are much more powerful, but making it more powerful is a double-edged sword. The increased work needed to make a scenario that takes advantage of the new features significantly reduces the pool of people who can or are willing to invest the effort. With QB/random battles still not anywhere near as flexible as CM1, that avenue is also a bumpy road.

In the end, all these things, combined with CMSF getting kind of a bad rep around the web, are conspiring to really limit the buzz. I almost think BFC needs to do some kind of re-release with a big patch that adds a lot of features or with the Marine add-on to get the buzz back in the franchise.