Thinking of buying this game...BUT...

[MikeyD]

I'm finding VERY useful AI design practice from doing QB maps and FILLING every AI order slot with as many generic movements & maneuvers as you can think of. You got 5 sets of command orders to fill. Let them come on slow the first, rush forward the next, left flank from behind cover in the third, advance-halt-defend in the fourth, think of something crazy in the last. Its good AI-building practice, and you won't know if your QB enemy's gonna zig or zag! Also, playing QBs you can see what DOESN'T work. For example generic movement '1' is good for T72 maneuver but will cause infantry to crawl all the way to their next waypoint. Handy info to know when it comes to serious scenario time. Crack open most scenarios and check their AI commands. Alot of them don't come near to pushing the limits of the AI.

[MarkEzra]

MikeyD: Here's one that does:

Viper Pass allows you to play single attacker, defender or 2 player. But what I really had in mind was to produce a scen that I could play as defender and just let it play out like a movie. The AI is VERY Aggressive with 5 different plans each with 8 separate groups and multiple orders, times, and tasks. You can sit back and watch the AI attack or actively defend. Of course you can attack as well. The red defender has 5 plans and 8 groups as well. Get it at www.CMMODS.com

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

I think one of the main reasons QB were so popular was that old CM scen designers could only make the AI come at you one way...ALWAYS.

Nope. That's not one of the main reasons. Read the posts of those of us that are poleaxed by its absence now - we like

Quick.

Battles.

A few clicks to have something within defined parameters (or completely random), and the ability to pick forces to try out specific combinations and battle types. And about 5 minutes to set it all up if you're in a hurry.

That's why we are sad faces - has nothing to do with scenarios being limited by mechanics. Scenarios are inherently limited by specifics in the first place: they are quite restrictive, have limited replayability, and rely on someone else's points of interest. Scenarios have never interested me that much in any tactical wargame I've ever owned or played, from Squad Leader to CM.

-dale

[Cadmium77]

A wee bit off topic but I can't wait for;

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/?lang=en

[M1A1TC]

DGS looks awesome!!Thanks for the link.

The best thing about it - I can play it in Russian!

[C'Rogers]

Scenarios have never interested me that much in any tactical wargame I've ever owned or played, from Squad Leader to CM.

Before CM:SF I would have been in the same camp as you In fact I was ready to chuck the game after my first quick battle.

Now playing scenarios and designing my own having as much fun as I did with CMx1 (and far more if only single player is considered).

To the original posters

Reasons you would probably like the game

1) You like the idea of having a huge deal of options in scenarios.

2) You enjoy modern/asymmetric warfare.

3) You like the idea of real time.

Reasons you probably wouldn't like the game

1) You need TC/IP multiplayer

2) You would become upset if you want to be able to place squads in exact positions (trying to place along corners or move along walls).

3) You would highly dislike occasionally seeing impossible shots (through walls).

Personally I really enjoy the game. I can't express enough how much I appreciate the ability to continually change the battle nature. One battle I can do an even armor engagement, next can be an infantry on mechanized with the mechanized being unable to take any real casualties, and then I could make an infantry on infantry, where one team is assaulting but must also protect its headquarters at all costs. No more just fighting for flags has made the game a huge leap, in my eyes at least, obviously there are huge disagreements.

There are still bugs so if you wish to wait feel free, but I am glad I preordered it.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I think the AI's as good as the designer.

Its not really AI then, now is it? I mean, CM SF does not have strat AI, the units just go down pre designed lanes of movement that the scenario designer made.

The strat AI in CMx1 was predictable if you knew how to read the terrain. Most maps had some bottle necks and you could bet the AI would come down those lanes.

So defending vs AI in CMx1 was a breeze. Problem is, its still is in CMSF. Except now, you dont defend vs AI, but vs scenario designer.

[Thomm]

Without triggers and branching conditions, I would not call the scripting system of CM:SF "AI" at all.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Darkmath]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

The strat AI in CMx1 was predictable if you knew how to read the terrain. Most maps had some bottle necks and you could bet the AI would come down those lanes.

So defending vs AI in CMx1 was a breeze. Problem is, its still is in CMSF. Except now, you dont defend vs AI, but vs scenario designer. [/QB]

1st: One could easily find pattern in AI in CMX1 (like the AI counter attack rushing thing in defense scenarios and QB).

2nd:"Except now, you dont defend vs AI, but vs scenario designer."

Unless when you have several AI plans. The AI could randomly choose different orders, if these orders are specified by the designer.In fact, the AI in CMSF is potentially more flexible than in CMX1, which can reach limit with its "one fits all" AI .

3rd: Why playing as a defender? It's an AI killer for every game, including CMX1 (Meetin engagement too)

[shafty]

Cadmuim, you in UK. If so I can send you my copy.

[Cadmium77]

Very kind of you Shafty but I'm in Canada. Vancouver BC to be precise.

Thank you anyway.