Fed up

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

But let's not forget CMBO shipped incomplete and it was never patched to completion.

I think this is a rather misguided statement. It like saying no software ever created is ever fully finished, because there are always something you could fix or make better. To then compare CMBO or CMx1 state of finished vs CMSF state of finished is absurd, IMHO.

What mattered is that CMx1 played great out of the box, and kept on getting better. CMSF played like crap out of the box, and still is crap (in my opinion). Frankly, I dont think any number of patches will save this turkey. I heard how every patch would somehow "save" CMSF, and none of them did. I have no reason to expect 1.05 will be any different.

Sure, after the patch people will get a bit interested again, checking out whats different and play a few games. But soon enough they'll see that in its core, its the same old game with all its flaws. Atleast, from my POV.

Seems Ive turned from fanatical BTS fanboi to bitter and grumpy. Oh well.

PS! I would love to be proven wrong.

[Sirocco]

I would agree that it's a turkey, at least from my perspective, but I disagree that it's the bugs and missing elements that make it so. Without question it shipped in a much more incomplete state than CMBO, but patched the game has been much more comparable to that state for a while. I just think there's a rose coloured view of CMBO at times here.

[MarkEzra]

Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum

It will cost a $100.00 to improve Shock Force's gameplay up to those standards.

[M1A1TC]

I am fed up with my Javelin soldier being the point man

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum

And for all that I'd still play CMBO. Bugs, oddities and downright weirdness included. Even if CMSF were patched to perfection.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI.

At least CMx1 HAD an AI.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum

Ahh, but no one has claimed CMx1 was perfect, so listing a bunch of its flaws doesn't really address the main point here:

Customers are dissatisfied with CM:SF as it stands right this second. Some are VERY dissatisfied. THAT is BFC's problem right now.

I myself was planning on buying Strategic Command, now I don't think I will. That is a decision based purely on BFC's telling me to essentially feck off and go sniff up someone else's skirt when I was expressing my surprise and dissatisfation with the QB mechanic decisions they have made with CMx2.

Of course, if my CMx1 CDs wear out then I'll be back in the cookie jar...

Anyway, that's the point of this thread - it's not a programming or design issue at this point, it's a customer service issue.

-dale

[M1A1TC]

I suggested that BFC needs a PR person...

[RevJack]

If you don't buy Strategic Command 2, you'll will be making a mistake and missing out on a very fine game, IMHO. SC 2 is a fine game in it's own right. My 2 cents only

[Scipio]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I suggested that BFC needs a PR person...

As far as I know, MadMatt is the PR person!? *giggle*

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI.

At least CMx1 HAD an AI. </font>

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum

And for all that I'd still play CMBO. Bugs, oddities and downright weirdness included. Even if CMSF were patched to perfection. </font>

[MarkEzra]

Dale: It was you who said the CMx1 was the greatest war game made...You put aside ASL for it. It was you who said That CM2 should keep all the same abstractions...the 3 guys are 12 the bullets stop where ever...corners are not actually corners and tanks can somehow shoot around them or through them in 20 meter abstraction... Fine...you keep it...For me I'm going with CM:SF...I don't think I'm going alone, either. Oh, by the way...I think BFC's customer service is just fine.

[adultery]

well..i havent loaded it up in about 6 weeks

i see the little icon staring at me on my desktop, but i glare at it with bitter and jaded eyes...and it soon fades away

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

I designed a scen to show the AI ability to fight.

Mark..it's not just the tactical battle AI, it's the pathing AI that's broken. You know the one where you order your infantry into a building and they take off down the street...Or order them into a trench and they decide to have a smoke in the middle of a road. That AI is broken and no amount of designing scenarios is going to fix it.

Anyway I have no idea what 1.05 will fix and what it won't fix. I have a good idea that it will not fix everything that is lacking or broken. I fully expect that it will take an additional purchase of another CM:SF module to get anywhere near the game quality out of CM:SF as any of the prior three Combat Mission games provided. Add that to all of the missing features when comparing the two and it's pretty much a wait and see what happens with the CM:2 game engine and WWII.

[MarkEzra]

Abbot: Isn't your info 2nd hand...You don't own the game or do you? Have you played it v 1.04? Or just the Demo. I am under the impression you have not played it. Am I wrong?

To your point:

I PLAY the game DAILY. I don't have any particular problems with troop movement in or out of buildings. I do understand that there are still reports of assault teams lining up to be mowed down. I believe the beta testers are aware of this. As they are a number of movement LOS/LOF abstractions. As to trench line..Order them to "move" and they will walk right down the trench line in file. Of course CM trenches were really designed to defend from so generally I set up a base of fire in one and assault the next...but that's just me... You don't have these kinds of problems in CMx1 because it is entirely abstracted...no doors to worry about, no need to find windows to shoot from...Trenches are nice flat dark things Oh the joys of old CM. if we could all just go there and live our lives abstracted. Sorry to say Abbott but thems the old days...It's been a VERY rough start for CMx2 and it's taking a lot of time to get straighted out (patch by patch...just like BFC said). But I like the direction that BFC is going. You might want to keep in mind that CMBO was completely scrapped to move on to CMBB...No BMPs worth using...too graphically tiny, No CMBO scen could be played on CMBB. Just a brand new game. So you wait it out, Me I'm playing the game and lovin every minute of it.

[ November 26, 2007, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Dale: It was you who said the CMx1 was the greatest war game made...You put aside ASL for it.

I did. CMx1 replaced ASL for me.

It was you who said That CM2 should keep all the same abstractions...the 3 guys are 12 the bullets stop where ever...corners are not actually corners and tanks can somehow shoot around them or through them in 20 meter abstraction... Fine...you keep it...For me I'm going with CM:SF...I don't think I'm going alone, either.

Point to a single post where I asked for those things. You can't. What I have bemoaned is the same thing that gave me pause almost exactly 7 years ago: 1:1 that is not really 1:1 causes more problems than it solves.

Frankly I don't know if you can have a successful design that makes detailed terrain (and I know Steve would go down to 1cm terrain resolution if he thought our PC's could handle it!) and still maintains an abstracted squad or team unit. I can believe that that proposition is as full of pitfalls and potential wackiness as what the current solution seems to hold.

I've also bemoaned the dropping of what I consider to be core design features like random maps and force picks for QBs, but those are simply matters of opinion.

Oh, by the way...I think BFC's customer service is just fine.

I understand.

-dale

[MarkEzra]

Dale:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was you who said That CM2 should keep all the same abstractions...the 3 guys are 12 the bullets stop where ever...corners are not actually corners and tanks can somehow shoot around them or through them in 20 meter abstraction... Fine...you keep it...For me I'm going with CM:SF...I don't think I'm going alone, either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point to a single post where I asked for those things. You can't. What I have bemoaned is the same thing that gave me pause almost exactly 7 years ago: 1:1 that is not really 1:1 causes more problems than it solves.

Fair enough question. But really a hair splitter, isn't it? I am willing to concede that I Can NOT point to any post that specifically states 3/12 men, abstractions ect. You should, however concede that your wish was to improve on the exisiting engine with those abstractions. And that, of course, is my point.

What your view is regarding 1:1 is well known to me. I don't pretend to know all that much about it. As a consumer of BFC's products I do encourage them to go with this engine and move forward with improved graphic display while not weakening accuracy and fidelity of detail. They think they can do it. I take them at their word You have your doubts. At some point we will all know the answer.

I definitely disagree regarding random maps. The community always produces exceptional maps, the Game maps are pretty Blah. BFC has said their looking at some method. So OK, great... I might even try to use it. But I do see it would be an essential for many a player. Regarding Force picks I totally agree and I'm ready to grab a pitchfork and Storm the Bastille!... The QB generator should be brought into proper, workable order sooner than say TCP for WEGO. But like you say...it's an opinion.

[ November 26, 2007, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Have you played it v 1.04?

Yes.

[Macisle]

CMx1 replaced ASL for me.

He-he. I have had the opposite experience. I am in my mid-thirties and am neither a "wargamer" nor a "gamer" - just a person who wants the most enjoyable WWII-based tactical game experience he can find.

I started playing ASL after years of CMx1 and a long line of other quality video game titles (Panzer Elite, WWII Online, The Close Combat series, The Total War series, and many others). While CMx1 is still the best WWII-based tactical game experience in video game format I have ever seen, and the only video game series I still play - I prefer ASL.

I guess this is why I felt the need to post, as there is an automatic assumption that people played ASL because computer gaming just wasn't up to snuff yet and once it was - bye-bye ASL.

The truth is that each medium offers things not provided by the other and so it is really not an either-or decision. For me, as of CMAK, the CMx1 series still does not have the richness of game experience that ASL provides, due to the great variety of ASL victory conditions, available controllable player actions (direct control of smoke grenades, PF's, ATMM, demo charges, individual AFV weapons & smoke dischargers, etc.), random events (heat of battle, snipers, etc.), and the juicy decision making that the "RT" nature of defensive fire in ASL allows.

(Example: Your German concealed flank hardpoint of a stone building is being approached by an Ami HT. Do you reveal yourself and hit it at distance with small arms and hope for a stun? Do you let it come closer, perhaps to pass you by? Do you wait for a bypass "freeze" attempt and blast it with a PF - probably filling your location with blaze smoke, thus losing the value of your hardpoint? YOU and not the TacAI must make this decision as the HT moves forward in RT - no take backs. Big tension and big fun!)

I may seem to be knocking CM, but believe me, I am not. I am just trying to offer my 2 cents with regards to the "Of course I left ASL for CM" train of thought.

As for CMSF, I cannot comment on it, as my rig won't run it. I will certainly try out it and future CM offerings, future hardware allowing.

As for CMx2, and coming from my position as being primarily an ASL player, I am completely open-minded about it. It can never replace ASL, so why not see where the video game medium can take it?

I look forward to trying out the WWII CMx2 titles. By then, I should have a new rig!

All the best,

Macisle

[ November 27, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Macisle ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Fair enough question. But really a hair splitter, isn't? I am willing to concede that I Can NOT point to any post that specifically states 3/12 men, abstractions ect. You should, however concede that your wish was to improve on the exisiting engine with those abstractions. And that, of course, is my point.

I don't see it as a hair splitter, no. I've stated all along that I don't think partial 1:1 (i.e. showing me details that act odd) will work for a good game. What the real solution is, I can't say. Maybe keeping 3 units on a base is the answer, maybe refining the current "1:1" details so that they act less odd is the answer. Maybe a combo is the answer. Maybe it can't be done at all and CMx1 was somehow magically right at the edge of the envelope.

I don't believe that last one, but I type it as a possibility.

Based on the above I do believe, of course, that some level of abstraction is necessary. Turns out that's okay because we have that in CMx2 anyway - there is a level of abstraction present in both terrain and unit parameters. The hard (hardest?) part I imagine is making that marriage work, which is why you have what you have now.

What your view is regarding 1:1 is well known to me. I don't pretend to know all that much about it. As a consumer of BFC's products I do encourage them to go with this engine and move forward with improved graphic display while not weakening accuracy and fidelity of detail. They think they can do it. I take them at their word You have your doubts. At some point we will all know the answer.

I agree. Doesn't reduce the interest I have in the design topic though.

I definitely disagree regarding random maps. The community always produces exceptional maps, the Game maps are pretty Blah. BFC has said their looking at some method. So OK, great... I might even try to use it. But I do see it would be an essential for many a player.

Actually the majority of the user-made maps I've seen for CMx1 are not very good. There are a few highly-skilled guys but mainly they are so-so, in my opinion. At least when the game throws up a real dog map you can just reset and go again.

Regarding Force picks I totally agree and I'm ready to grab a pitchfork and Storm the Bastille!... The QB generator should be brought into proper, workable order sooner than say TCP for WEGO. But like you say...it's an opinion.

Yep. I can't imagine bothering with a WWII game where I can't pick my own stuff.

-dale

[C'Rogers]

PS! I would love to be proven wrong.

Honestly as someone who is really looking forward to 1.05 I doubt it will change many people's opinions. I think a lot of people have a problem with the direction BFC has gone and it isn't like the core will change. With the level of some peoples complaints I doubt there is any way they will come out liking it.

Personally since about 1.02 I have thought the game blew away CMx1 in terms of what I am looking for in a wargame. But I think the love it/hate it comparison threads have already run their course.

[Omenowl]

BFC posts about once or twice a week to let everyone know they are still working on 1.05. The beta testers are letting people know BFC is working on the patch.

Every few days someone whines because Steve doesn't comment on their post and then throws a hissie fit saying BFC doesn't care even when a beta tester chimes in.

There are a lot of problems with the game. Same are minor (overly accurate RPGS) and some are major (multiplayer and quickbattles). BFC knows there are problems, they have commented on them and unless they having something new to say I would rather them keep on working to fix them than try to address every post.

[Dirtweasle]

So it seems we're past "getting it" or "not getting it", eh?

Some of you are now well into rationalizing a poor product roll out, odd game mechanics and UI, flawed documentation, compounded by lousy customer communication, and etc, and moving into demonizing customers, (and potential customers), not willing to suspend disbelief and agree the emperor has a fine set of clothes.