CM Lite?

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Deathsai:

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

Longer then we wish...sooner than we deserve

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Deathsai:

those like PoE who insist that CMSF was the holy grail on release and is just as good or better than CMx1.

Nah, this game engine's got plenty of room in it's trousers to grow, and legs long enough to do the walking. Give it time. Remember, y'all's beloved turn-based game wasn't hatched out of whole-cloth.

Likewise, it's the dialectical nature of things that a pre-existing condition will generate it's opposite. The process of reconciliation will bring change. And it's the synthesis that's up for grabs.

Stick around.

PoE

[MikeyD]

"- With the current tactical skills of the AI the Quick Battle Generator is a joke"

Why does it sound like some people opened the box, fired-up a QB first thing and have been basing their statements on that one experience ever since? All along BFC has been saying the complexity of the new game engine made doing a QB generator very problematic. You came close to not getting one at all! The QB generator is not the sum total of CMSF. Anyone who's taken the time to actually learn the game and has gone some distance into the campaign battles will NOT come away thinking this is 'CM Lite'.

[Stryker]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

...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.

This forum is so unique. I've seen it all. Trash someone that trashes CMx2 by trashing CMx1.

[track]

I liked CMx1 series. Let's see where we are going with CMSF

1) 1/10th of content that was in CM 1x series games

2) Quick Battle editor works, but battles are

mostly unplayable due to fact that forces the computer chooses are a strange mix and AI does not work properly.

3) The game costs about the same as the CM 1x series games did.

I played the scenarios too. And... I see detoriating value here. Perhaps a few more months before the release could have done a lot of good. Let's see how many free patches vs. commercial addon modules the future will bring.

But all is as BF promised. No more content full releases. So we were warned. I expected the basic game structure to be at somewhat more solid state.

But as I said wait and be a lot wiser.

[ August 03, 2007, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: track ]

[Darkmath]

We're all hoping so.

[MarkEzra]

I have no problem about a few start up scen/camp. The CM community produces them with great care and detail. That the editor is truly a remarkable advance will take time to show itself. A bit like the county fair...so much to see and do.

Regarding the QB Platform: I do not see the need for game generated maps. I stopped using them in CMx1 over player/self created maps ages ago. But the delight of creating a force mix of my own and allowing the game to select a random force to surprise me will be missed. I do hope the BFC will review it's position. My understanding of the "problem with QB" was the computer generated map, not troop selection methodology.

[track]

I lost interest in Quick Battle generator after I got several times (as Syrians) few teams of medium machineguns, spotters without any firing units and a couple of command units plus numerous UAZ "all terrain combat vehicles".

What do you expect the enemy to be? All the logic would say that maybe Stryker infantry, Bradleys? But no a fully armored force of M1 tanks.

What's the point?

Some times AI units just sit in there busy doing nothing.

I would be more than pleasantly surprised if at some point the game would allow me to choose - say 30%-50% of the force composition.

[ August 03, 2007, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: track ]

[pcelt]

This is one aspect which really confuses and troubles me---Initially we were informed that individual choice of units for QBs would no longer exist "to prevent the CM1 "cherry picking" effect and to ensure a realistic force and combination of units.

But it would appear that that very often the force delivered to us is an extremely peculiar mix and very unrealistic. The effect of this different approach would appear to be often the reverse of the stated intention.

I would like the option to choose my own force and to accept the consequences of my own poor or good decisions.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by pcelt:

This is one aspect which really confuses and troubles me---Initially we were informed that individual choice of units for QBs would no longer exist "to prevent the CM1 "cherry picking" effect and to ensure a realistic force and combination of units.

But it would appear that that very often the force delivered to us is an extremely peculiar mix and very unrealistic. The effect of this different approach would appear to be often the reverse of the stated intention.

I would like the option to choose my own force and to accept the consequences of my own poor or good decisions.

I like cherries...Give me more cherries to pick

[KNac]

About all this, one of the things that thrilles me more about all this ranting & raving is the repeated false fact that CMx1 TacAI was so great compared to CMSF TacAI.

First off, CMx1 was an abstraction, not a 1:1 representation of units, terrain features/tilles where pretty much abstracted as well. Now each unit has to find "fisical" cover & conceallement in the 1:1 map; yes, the beahaviour is odd, units rarelly retreat or seek cover, but that's cause the game has bugs or is far from perfect (as well as was CMBO when was first released, I'm not saying this game is all perfect, sure it could be more polished, but compared to nowadays standards is not that bad).

Some people should get back that open mind disposition they had when first tried CMx1, and found it refreshing, instead of the non productive ranting. I think most would find the game rather enjoyable after a while if they could ge rid of all the little prejuices. That and a couple of patches to fix bugs and polish the game, off course.

[track]

Sorry I'm not American and thus have not taken my Prozac today

Anyways. I remember playing the CM demo for the first time. I found fluid and much more natural than the tactical computer games so far.

Well not the same with CMSF. Many improvements are surely there, but overall it does not feel (yet) coherent enough to reach equal heights. And this is taking into account that many years have passed since the earlier games. BF did not hit the mark as effectively as they did last time. Have to see where the series goes before I can make up my mind for sure. To me the game is very promising but not amazing.

[ August 03, 2007, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: track ]

[KNac]

was that game CMBO first version?

[jep]

Originally posted by ToadMan:

CMSF doesn't strike me as similar to those games.

As a realtime game CMSF is much like Close Combat series. "Unfortunately" CC5 is a very good game. Before the WW2 release Battlefront should do some serious benchmarking.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

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.

Heh it's funny you should say that.

When I first played the CMBO demo I thought...wow miniatures wargaming on a PC.

Especially with how the infantry was displayed - always reminded me of four figures on a base to represent a squad.

[Guest]

Mmmm. That reminds me, I need to dig up my copy of Close Combat Marines. The Close Combat series is my primary reference point for good commercial TacAI.

CM:SF feels like it has the potential to seriously advance CM and wargaming in general. I think the direction taken in future patches will help determine whether that potential bears any fruit.

For large scenarios, "realistic forces" may be a good goal. For smaller scenarios, though... I would imagine that being able to pick exactly what you want on the field would actually enhance realism.

A short Stryker platoon + a recon vehicle and a couple mortar teams on some random op seems more realistic than a full platoon of each, if you even have *that* level of choice.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

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.

Heh it's funny you should say that.

When I first played the CMBO demo I thought...wow miniatures wargaming on a PC.

Especially with how the infantry was displayed - always reminded me of four figures on a base to represent a squad. </font>

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

The funny thing is that you're saying this as if its bad.

That was GOOD! It was GREAT!

At last, the ability to play tactical wargames with an independant moderator, no dice, FOW etc!!

It was a breakthrough!

I agree whole-heartedly that it was a breakthrough as far as animated miniatures games are concerned. I was introduced to the CMBO demo by a friend who maintained an army of GHQ micro-armour and he was ecstatic. I was horrified at the state of the demo and missed those beautiful little 1/285th scale tanks. I'm not sure that I've ever forgiven BF for the loss.

As far gameplay was concerned, the CMx game(s) brought a lot to the table, no pun intended, in terms of turn-based gaming. But, the turns were still there, and having been ruined by CC and Sid Meier's Gettysburg, I realized that RT play was essential to computer wargaming. Why the heck play a game on a computer if you're unable or unwilling to unleash it's power to introduce the fourth dimension into play, CONTINUOUS TIME?

I'm still actively involved in boardgaming, BTW. I dearly love spending an evening pushing counters around a map and analyzing the game and its outcome with (a) friend(s). That's where the turns belong, IMO, in an environment where extended deliberation is a crucial element of the experience. I wouldn't want to play "speed-chess" on a computer any more than I'd prefer to play tennis on an Atari. The former belongs in two (or three) dimensions, the latter is clearly lacking in anything less than four.

PoE

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by KNac:

... is the repeated false fact that CMx1 TacAI was so great compared to CMSF TacAI.

I can't see anything false about that fact if I compare the TacAI of CMx1 and CMx2 at its present state.

I'am not saying that it can't be improved or that it isn't a bug but at this moment for me it's a game breaker (playing only the demo right now).

Just 2 examples that happened to me:

- A Stryker sees a T72 and does nothing to evade the threat, it doesn't even use smoke. Well yes sometimes it does something, it attacks the T72 with 0.50 cal. :confused: .

- A group of 2 T72 detects some Strykers at a distance of 50 meters and they don't attack.

The result is just laughable. T72s that don't attack standing next to Strykers that don't do anything. If you experience something like this the immersion is instantly gone.

That being said, I don't think that CMSF is CM Lite. All that was modelled in CMx1 is in CMSF and much more. Relative spotting and the much better arty (the interface is a gem) come to my mind. If anything it's CM Plus.

The problem is that all those improvements won't be appreciated by some (me ) at this point because they are overshadowed by things that need a lot of work still (TacAi, LOS/LOF, UI, weapon bugs...) or are just missing (info screens, a playback function, at least a minute, for RT...).

But I have faith that they'll manage to improve what is already there and to add some new features (can I have a playback function for RT, pleaaaaaaaaase) which will make CMSF the CM Plus we all hoped for.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Regarding the QB Platform: I do not see the need for game generated maps. I stopped using them in CMx1 over player/self created maps ages ago. But the delight of creating a force mix of my own and allowing the game to select a random force to surprise me will be missed. I do hope the BFC will review it's position. My understanding of the "problem with QB" was the computer generated map, not troop selection methodology.

Steve has stated that the troop purchasing is out of consideration because of the new command & control system. Even if they wanted to do it (and I don't think they do based on what he's said) they couldn't.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Mace:

Heh it's funny you should say that.

When I first played the CMBO demo I thought...wow miniatures wargaming on a PC.

Especially with how the infantry was displayed - always reminded me of four figures on a base to represent a squad.

You mean like this?

-dale

[Guest]

Weird. They seem to have modelled the *loss* of C2... I wonder what the hangup would be with initially limited C2?

Prince, I enjoy a good turn-based computer wargame, but I agree that the ultimate "turn" is the one you have in your living room at 11PM while clustered with friends around a map of Northern Europe. I can't say that I think fast enough to handle all real-time simulations of warfare. Fields of Glory was a management nightmare in some of the larger scenarios. Still enormous fun, though.

On the other hand, though, I do own Supreme Commander and seem to have no problem managing hundreds of units there. Supreme Commander, despite its complexity and size, has an excellent interface that provides a number of very clever solutions to common RT-gaming problems.

As for the two TacAI examples from moneymaxx... I like to play with infantry, and the experience with infantry is basically just those examples multiplied by nine. Painful. I pray every night to the hellish god of wargamers that a serious TacAI fix comes in the next patch or two.

[track]

What's wrong with the real time, we-go and all of these systems is the fact that computer units are idiots. In real life company commander does not tell every squad and team what they should do. No he commands and tells the larger objectives and trusts the execution of his orders to platoon and squad leaders. He intervenes if needed. Plus you should give commands from the first person view like in shooter games not some birds eye view howering over the battle field. Takes many years before we see this in games, but until we do they are going to be more or less "gamey".

One thing I have not seen in computer games is fire discipline. Poorly trained troops usually open up too early thus revealing their position to the enemy.

I have to admid that such kind of game would be frustrating and I doubt many would enjoy it. Plus it is nice to see the battlefield in varoius angles

[ August 04, 2007, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: track ]

[Mad Russian]

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.

I guess I don't get this post. HSG has scenarios that feature single tanks for your entire OOB...how much smaller than that can you get?

While the emphasis for CMx2 seems to have changed to a smaller scale that doesn't mean that CMx1 can't portray that same smaller scale.

BFC is trying some different approaches to modeling the combat portrayed. Whether or not they succeed in that is a personal determination by each and everyone of us.

To say that CMx1 didn't cover small unit actions doesn't seem to hold much water for me though.

While CMSF isn't my cup of tea, the evolution of the game series is very much of interest to me. I'm sure that CMSF will evolve through patches just as CMBO did. I currently don't own CMBO any more either...I gave it to a friend that wanted to see what wargames were all about. I still play CMBB - CMAK almost everyday though. And so does the friend I gave CMBO to. BTW he gave that same copy to another friend.....

So, I'll still give BFC the benefit of the doubt on another ground breaking design, that they broke the original ground on....and wait and see what else they might come up with.

MR

[ August 04, 2007, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]

[KAding]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

I guess I don't get this post. HSG has scenarios that feature single tanks for your entire OOB...how much smaller than that can you get?

While the emphasis for CMx2 seems to have changed to a smaller scale that doesn't mean that CMx1 can't portray that same smaller scale.

BFC is trying some different approaches to modeling the combat portrayed. Whether or not they succeed in that is a personal determination by each and everyone of us.

To say that CMx1 didn't cover small unit actions doesn't seem to hold much water for me though.</font>