CM Lite?

[carlR]

Great graphics, fast adrenalin pumping RT gameplay.

BUT no TacAI to speak of, no LOS/LOF {anyone wonder why there is no LOS tool? - LOS doesnt work so a tool cant work), weak pathfinding plus an assortment of less significant problems.

Makes me wonder if BFC made a conscious decision to pander to the great graphics/fast gameplay RTS crowd in an attempt to generate increased sales?

AND/OR

The issues with CMSF do seem remarkably similar to those with TOW...which is a totally different engine. Maybe programming complex LOS/LOF systems and solid AI is just too difficult??

I think Im going to have go to playing 2D top-down wargames from Matrix.

[BigMatt]

Yeah it's hard to believe that just a week ago i had such high hopes for CMSF.

[ToadMan]

I think the problem is that BFC have tried to make a simulation, while some people here wanted a wargame.

Simulations are normally realtime - or to put it another way, non RT simulations of RT processes are usually impractical (see Acthung Spitfire or ASL for an example).

Anyway getting back to the point, there is a LOS tool for units which can have a LOF and I suspect due to the moaning we'll get a LOS tool despite the lack of requirement for it and the time it will take that could have been spent on something more valuable.

As for "fast paced RTS clicking" well personally I dislike RTSs just as much as anyone else, and CMSF doesn't strike me as similar to those games. If you play it that way though, I guess that's up to you in much the same way as you could play CC as a "fast clicking" RTS.

TM.

[Luppas]

For me the same, I tried it out and I'm realy disappointed.

I regret that I buy it after I don't like the demo. But I just thought the Full Version has something more under the hood. And I'm a fan of the series since the first Combat Mission.

But when I see Theatres of War I could imagine where the journey is going, and if I now see the answers from Battlefront, my imagination was right.

We will see what they made out of it in the future, and then I will decide. But for me it is the last time that I buy a product of Battlefront before I testet it deeply. I read in another thread that the selling is going very well, I think it is the big faith from the fans. We will se how long it will go on.

"To win a customer it takes a long time, to loose him only seconds"

With best regards,

Luppas

[KAding]

I have high hopes. I can see this evolving into some kind of super Close Combat, one of my favorite games of all time.

A different game from CMx1 for sure, but still a great concept with great potential. I can see how you would be disappointed if you expected a sequel to CM though, rather than a Close Combat style of game . So CC Plus rather than CM Lite .

Thats just my perspective though, perhaps comparing CM to CC is blasphemous on these boards, I don't know.

[carlR]

The CMX1 games are indeed wargames and they work. I was in fact hoping for a new wargame set in the modern era, one in which walls buildings and hills block the ability to fire on targets as they do in real life. I accept the need to use RT when creating a sim of a single vehicle that moves like a plane or sub, but CM is about using a number of different assets and employing real-world tactics to defeat an enemy. As such it is a wargame for which turns are entirely appropriate. Anyway, it is not RT that is my gripe. I just wonder if BFC included it to make the game more 'appealing' to the masses....and in the meantime forgot that accurate LOS/LOF is pretty essential to make a wargame set in modern times anywhere near enjoyable.

[Pandur]

i dont know why people keep thinking that RT is more realistic than anything else in such a game. :confused:

[KAding]

RT isn't too bad IMHO. It just depends on the scale of the battle. Battles in CMx1 and many other 'grog' games have always been too large for my taste anyway.

RT works, but it requires smaller battles so the human player can keep a good overview of a battle.

Some people don't like such smaller battles.

[Ronn]

Close Combat is a VERY (!) SLOW game and so it's

controllable. And you get everytime the big picture!

CM:CF is a fast game and you can only take

your attention to one or two POI's.

The only experience from the RT-aspect

for me was time pressure ...

[Thomm]

IMHO, CC is more controllable because you do not have to fiddle around with a 3D camera.

In CM:SF the vehicles are fast, for sure, but I find myself moving infantry awfully slow and deliberate ... otherwise they die almost instantly.

Edit: ok, with respect to casualty rates, the game IS fast!

Best regards,

Thomm

[carlR]

That some of you think of CMSF as a potential new & better CC rather than an updated and improved CM suggests to me that the series has gone 'lite' in pursuit of sales. TOW adopts the same marketing pitch btw. I suspect that this will prove to have been a successful marketing ploy on behalf of BFC. Sales will no doubt be much higher than they were for the CMX1 games. It is a shame that for wargamers who want to simulate real-world tactics, we are left wondering what could have been. I will continue to play CMX1 and hope that by the time CMX2 WW2 comes out the CMX2 series is a fully functioning wargame.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by carlR:

think Im going to have go to playing 2D top-down wargames from Matrix.

Hi Carl: I'm one of Wild Bill's Raiders (Warlord)

so you'll know I know a thing or two about Matrix games. Love Matrix but they have produced game after game that required multiple patching to play properly. I don't know if you missed CMBO's release and the often bitter comments from SP fans. They were something. But my opinion is: CM:SF (and all CMx1) are the only authentic step forward in Wargaming since SP. So I ask you to give CM:SF another try playing in WEGO. What is going on under the hood of CM is prodigious combat accuracy. An accuracy that cannot be met using hex based methods. Only a 3D environment allows for the level of accuracy all Wargamer's dream of.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by KAding:

RT isn't too bad IMHO. It just depends on the scale of the battle. Battles in CMx1 and many other 'grog' games have always been too large for my taste anyway.

RT works, but it requires smaller battles so the human player can keep a good overview of a battle.

Some people don't like such smaller battles.

CC proved that it's possible to make an excellent small-unit, RT game. Of course, CC3 introduced extra unit slots and open purchase of armour which, IMO, seriously undermined the effectiveness of the design.

There appears to be an inherent tension in the design of RT wargames, as evidenced by the handful of ones that have been successful. The necessity of limiting the scope of the fighting is always in conflict with the DEMANDS of a noisy minority for MORE OF EVERYTHING, more, more, more, bigger-better-badder. That's how CC3 ended up with all those slots open for armour.

And so it is with CMSF. BF can make an excellent RT wargame, as is evidenced by the current state of the product, even in it's nascent stages. Conversely, they can ruin it by pandering to the folks who want more CMx1, only bigger-better-badder.

What a relentless bore.

PoE

[ August 03, 2007, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Prince of Eckmühl ]

[carlR]

Mark

I came to CMBO after v1.12 was already out. Then got CMBB & CMAK on release. So yes I guess I missed all the forum kerfuffle when CMBO was released. I sincerely hope BFC can fix all the problems with CMSF.

[track]

BUT no TacAI to speak of, no LOS/LOF

After few days, here's the verdict

- Simply too little content

- With the current tactical skills of the AI the Quick Battle Generator is a joke (makes CMx1 AI a look like a multi-talented genius)

- Lots of interesting new details

- Takes still a lot of work to bring it up to a decent level tactical wargame

- Nice graphics, but not the best quality

[MarkEzra]

Hi Carl: Good enough...We've hung through worse. This too shall pass

[carlR]

PoE

I dont want bigger badder CMX1, more units, more of everything. I only play small battles in CMX1 anyway. BUT I would quite like it if things that worked pretty well in CMX1 like LOS, pathfinding and TacAI also worked in CMX2. Maybe with time they will!

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

But my opinion is: CM:SF (and all CMx1) are the only authentic step forward in Wargaming since SP.

For what it is worth, I second this opinion.

(At least for what concernes modern tactical wargames)

Regards,

Amedeo

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by carlR:

Great graphics, fast adrenalin pumping RT gameplay.

BUT no TacAI to speak of, no LOS/LOF {anyone wonder why there is no LOS tool? - LOS doesnt work so a tool cant work), weak pathfinding plus an assortment of less significant problems.

Makes me wonder if BFC made a conscious decision to pander to the great graphics/fast gameplay RTS crowd in an attempt to generate increased sales?

AND/OR

The issues with CMSF do seem remarkably similar to those with TOW...which is a totally different engine. Maybe programming complex LOS/LOF systems and solid AI is just too difficult??

I think Im going to have go to playing 2D top-down wargames from Matrix.

I keep reading references to CMSF's poor "tactical AI" and "pathfinding." What I find sort of mind-numbing about the comments is that they're encumbered by a fairly powerful inference that these were somehow strengths of the old games. This is so starkly at odds with my own experience that I feel compelled to comment.

The truth be known, I quit playing the CMx1 games because they evidenced no tactical AI or pathfinding ability, whatsoever, NONE. Players had to do it all. They couldn't even order a unit to march down a road. We had to micro-plot dozens of moves each turn, choreographing what I've often described as what appeared to be a poorly designed play from American football.

It was simplistic in the extreme, an animated, ww2 miniatures game, and nothing more. At it's core, and at it's best, a couple of weapons systems would hurl ordnance down-range at each other, tank vs tank, or whatever. But, that's all it was. And there were sets of miniatures rules that had provided gamers with the same experience for decades before its inception.

As the battles grew in size, goofy stuff like the "borg" effect became more prominent factors in undermining the strength of the game, it's fidelity to modeling fighting between one weapon system and another. But, while there was some grousing about the game's eccentricities, the overwhelming sentiment was positive, "I have an unlimited amount of time to plot my moves, I can SAV before each turn is executed, and I can win. My what a great game!"

Phony, phony, phony.

PoE

[Darren J Pierson]

Why are so many people bound and determined that their beliefs are the only valid ones? Some folks like the game, others don't.

I must admit that after reading a lot of the negative comments on the boards and then getting the demo, the demo came out as a pleasant surprise.

I don't think this is CM lite and BFC will improve it w/o a doubt, I'm sure. But I can't help but laugh at the folks trashing CMx1 if they think it will help improve CM:SF's image.

[Darkmath]

no TacAI to speak of, no LOS/LOF {anyone wonder why there is no LOS tool? - LOS doesnt work so a tool cant work), weak pathfinding plus an assortment of less significant problems.

And 1:1 representation, relative spotting, vehicle blocking LOF, better artillery support command, more precise infantry ammunition handlings, better close up graphics (not so at far distance), speed of sound modelling and so on...

With all these complaining, we are about to ignore what the new engine brings in comparison with CMX1.

Still, the game can't stay in its current state... just like it was for the first CMX1 release, which have been improved/patched/fixed over 3 years. Comparing CMBO 1.0 to CMSF 1.01 is much relevant than comparing CMAK 1.03 to CMSF.

For CMX2,keep mind the devs. had to write an entire new engine , therefore has nothing in common with CMX1 engine.

I've learned it the hard way with TacAI/pathfinding, unfortunately. :mad:

But,one can put a blame on them for not having continue developping and testing the game until TacAI is at least as fine as CMX1 one (that is 2 to 6 months). But it seems to contradict battlefront's marketing strategy since TOW.

As for the LOS tool, you have now to use target command, as it was redondant from testers/dev's opinion.

Another thing about pathfinding,

pathfindings issues in CMX1 (don't tell me CMX1 is perfect ), such as convoy (in this regards not better than in CMSF if not worse), would require you to micromanaging, thus increasig command delay.

Now, while micromanagement still an annoying thing, it is less than in CMX1 as there is no command delay.

The problem is there were a lot of expectations for CMX2.

Moreover, some reviews (some of them poorly written, see Tom Chick's ad hominem comment about AI) considered the game as unplayable (and reviewing a release copy which need another months of programming doesn't help) , making some customers more reluctant each time they experience problems with the game.

[ August 03, 2007, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

I keep reading references to CMSF's poor "tactical AI" and "pathfinding." What I find sort of mind-numbing about the comments is that they're encumbered by a fairly powerful inference that these were somehow strengths of the old games. This is so starkly at odds with my own experience that I feel compelled to comment.

The truth be known, I quit playing the CMx1 games because they evidenced no tactical AI or pathfinding ability, whatsoever, NONE. Players had to do it all. They couldn't even order a unit to march down a road. We had to micro-plot dozens of moves each turn, choreographing what I've often described as what appeared to be a poorly designed play from American football.

It was simplistic in the extreme, an animated, ww2 miniatures game, and nothing more. At it's core, and at it's best, a couple of weapons systems would hurl ordnance down-range at each other, tank vs tank, or whatever. But, that's all it was. And there were sets of miniatures rules that had provided gamers with the same experience for decades before its inception.

As the battles grew in size, goofy stuff like the "borg" effect became more prominent factors in undermining the strength of the game, it's fidelity to modeling fighting between one weapon system and another. But, while there was some grousing about the game's eccentricities, the overwhelming sentiment was positive, "I have an unlimited amount of time to plot my moves, I can SAV before each turn is executed, and I can win. My what a great game!"

Phony, phony, phony.

PoE

This was a well written post; I disagree to a point that there was "no" TacAI in CMX1 - there was clearly some. Vehicles had to select ammunition types, for example, and had the ability to back away from danger. Minor flourishes, to be sure. The lack of a "follow me" command was also notable, and I'm sure we could list a lot of other defects. Unlike you, though, my personal reaction was that it didn't detract from the game experience. There was enough drama in any game thanks to the simultaneous resolution that funny pathing sometimes arguably became part of the fun - run a tank at top speed down a street while the enemy does the same from the opposite end of the map and watch what happens when they meet each other.

FWIW I am playing in BD6's meta campaign right now and thoroughly enjoying CM:BB. Compared to, say, Steel Panthers, with its sequential turn sequence and abstract animations (even moreso than CM with its 3 mutated soldiers per squad), CM is leagues ahead of anything else out there as far as a company/battalion tactical level game.

CM:BB managed to strike a chord with me as far as the dividing line between abstraction and realism. I wonder sometimes if CM:SF isn't heading into the "Uncanny Valley", as far as heightened expectations go. The more realistic looking you make it, the more realistic playing people will expect it. I gave up on OFP because of the ridiculous armour modelling and the explode on contact hand grenades that couldn't be used for house clearing. The game looked great, but for anything other than capture the flag between groups of men with rifles and machine guns, there was nothing else to do but wander the scenery of fly over in a helicopter and enjoy the view. I can get Microsoft Flight Simulator for that.

As far as CM:SF, perhaps it is in all our interests to remember that seeing individual soldiers does not equate to controlling them, and that what you see is still not always what you get.

Anyway, PoE, I understand your viewpoint completely. We all have thresholds of how much abstraction we're willing to accept, of how much slack we're willing to give a game engine, or of how hard we're willing to convince ourself that we're having fun. I still don't have to work hard at it in CM:BB - even when I see a halftrack with 75mm PaK in tow rotate on a dime before moving out. Too much affection for the game system and I guess fond memories of past experiences. Still remember the tourney scenario where I got to hunt Tigers with M4A376(W)s and managed to bag a couple by playing hide-and-go-seek around clumps of forest.

[MarkEzra]

Amedeo: Where two or more of us gather...

General Teddy Roosevelt on D-Day stated the obvious: "We'll start the war right here" And right here is where we are. CM:SF is not only a great vehicle to improve wargaming it may be the ONLY vehicle available. All wargamer's views need to be expressed. BFC has proven itself over the years to be open to new thoughts and contrary opinion.

[Deathsai]

I have no doubt that the CM devs will, in the end, make CMSF a great game and satisfy the majority of the gamers. There will, of course, still be bad apples-those who still wanted just an improved CMx1 and can't adapt completely to CMx2, and on the other side, those like PoE who insist that CMSF was the holy grail on release and is just as good or better than CMx1. But right now the game has a lot of annoying bugs and flaws that are naturally going to irritate people.

The question is, how long is it going to take the devs to fix them.

[thewood]

The whole start right here thing is valid, but the other side is also.

That other side is kind of a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" thing.

I think CMSF is a huge step forwards. But, looking at the things that attracted me to CM, it is lacking right now. All the things that got added to CM along the way and the things that were inherent seem to be gone on the surface. One of the things I most enjoyed was the TACAI taking things into its own hands and trying to extracte itself from something I had done to it. No other game had ever done that. That is something I still say WOW about today.

Yeah, sometimes it made the wrong decision, but to me that is the trade off over having to micromanage the crap out of it. In CMSF, if I suspect any armor is around, I can't trust my Strykers or BMPs to even remotely react to the threat. My soldiers stand and take a pounding with no thought to seeking cover.

CMSF brings a lot of great things to the table. Things I have always wanted to have in CMSF. And they work great. But I fell like I have taken a step backwards at the same time and some of the lessons learned in CM were not brought forward. I wonder if I am going to have to wait 2 or 3 years (like between CMBO and CMBB) for us to get those things back. Or maybe they aren't coming back.