Fed up

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

9. Some say that v1.05 will decide if the CMx2 engine can be successful or not.

That's a bit silly, really. The engine is what it is. There are some outstanding issues with LOS, some due to design, some not. Route finding is pretty bad but then again, coming from CMx1 you're used to baby-sitting your units step-by-step down the bends in a road.

I don't think the patch will change gameplay in a fundamental way. I seriously do doubt marines-module will do that either. For whatever changes Charles will incorporate into the engine will have to wait until Next Game. Think of CMBO and CMBB - Latter had lots of nice tweaks of how things do play without changing the basic engine.

I bought the game when it was at 1.02 but let it sit on desk until 1.04. With 1.04 it's definitely playable but I have to say the campaign setting is really not very interesting at all. You have huge disparity of forces where gameplay boils down to orchestrating huge firepower reserves with woefully insufficient number of troops..

For me the Marines module promises to be more of the same.

[markl]

I have just read most of this thread, and can see merits for most of the points of view.

I must admit one of the fundamental changes that I do not like is the change to product activation. Luckily I live in Australia and could get the Paradox version.

I was going to purchase the "Strategic Command 2" bundle but ended up purchasing "The Calm and the Storm" instead. Just a serial number and no CD needed to play.

Don't know how other think but I am fundamentally against activation and this alone will possibly stop me buying their future titles.

Not trying to bah the product here, but I would like to knowhow others feel about the activation change.

I am now starting to look at "Matrox" and "Stategy First" for their titles that just use serial numbers for install.

but I still hope CMSF improoves and I still have faith in Battlefront to fix it.

Cheers MarkL

[massive1974]

Hey guys,

I just received a newsletter from from BFC announcing a couple of new patches (for Weapons and Warfare and Strategic Command 2) but nothing for CMSF.

Am I sad or what?

Cheers

[Drusus]

I think it is really important that the missions in the campaign of the Marines module aren't like the ones in the current campaign. I mean, it is interesting to use a platoon or maybe a bit more to clean some houses. But I think you need to be a masochist to enjoy doing that with a company+ sized force. I have played a lot, but never got through campaign mission 2. There is just too much everything. But playing scenarios like House Cleaning I do enjoy a lot, so it is not about the modern / asymmetrical setting in general.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

The last map I tried to do featured a dry creek in a shallow valley, a ridge on either side with a few hills, a kind of a butte or escarpment, an old mine and the hint of a village on the extreme east side.

The notion I had was a US Cav detail to patrol into the valley, check out the mine, and return to the other side of the valley. Likewise the Syrians conduct a counter patrol from the ville on the east map edge to and from the valley and mine.

Dirtweasle,

Give it a try and see if it helps you.

Tutorial

[Paper Tiger]

Dirtweasel: quote The two main things I get hung up on are;

1. AI scripting and design - I was concerned this might be more than I was up for, and so far that has been proved right.

2. Contour lines - This seems like it ought to simple, trace a line and snap the delta in but damned if I am doing it right.

Why don't you start your own thread and ask for help with these things. There are plenty of us out here who are happy to help with that. It looks like Webwing has made good with his promise of a video tutorial for you. There's also a thread in the Scenario Designers forum about elevations that hasn't been fleshed out yet. The scenario editor is WELL worth the effort to get to know.

[SgtMuhammed]

I have started a map making thread in the scenario design forum. So far I have gotten a couple good tips and hope for more.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Why don't you start your own thread and ask for help with these things.

Maybe because this is a thread about being fed up?

...or maybe because the other part of the equation; mentioned directly, or by implication, in a post prior to that was I was using the editor while waiting for the patch(es) to come out and the game to be in a more finished playable state.

You know? Less Mole Men dragging my teams underground, less shape-shifters joining HQ squads, AT missiles being assigned to the company sniper, and the other dozen or so gripes reported that have not been acknowledged to be legit bugs or explained as who knows what? A poorly documented feature I just don't get yet.

[Micheal Wittman]

Originally posted by markl:

I have just read most of this thread, and can see merits for most of the points of view.

I must admit one of the fundamental changes that I do not like is the change to product activation. Luckily I live in Australia and could get the Paradox version.

I was going to purchase the "Strategic Command 2" bundle but ended up purchasing "The Calm and the Storm" instead. Just a serial number and no CD needed to play.

Don't know how other think but I am fundamentally against activation and this alone will possibly stop me buying their future titles.

Not trying to bah the product here, but I would like to knowhow others feel about the activation change.

I am now starting to look at "Matrox" and "Stategy First" for their titles that just use serial numbers for install.

but I still hope CMSF improoves and I still have faith in Battlefront to fix it.

Cheers MarkL

Hey markl, I guess we are a little of topic in this thread, but I'd prefer a serial # as opposed

to activation, but it's ok here and having tried the Calm and the Strom demo, I very much prefer the "SC" series over the other, or others. As far as your gaming enjoyment goes, you may want to give it a try.

Returning you back to the fed up thread>>

[C'Rogers]

A series of points I would like to touch on.

1) For the fed up people, have you never had a game disappoint you before? I certainly have. You make your comments, you see if they are going to change direction, and then you part ways. Come back in a couple months to see if there was a change (or a mod sometimes).

Not to trying to chase anyone away, just saying if you don't like the model you probably won't as BFC is pretty committed to the model (as a software company they probably financially have to be). If it is only bugs that bother you (and I am always shocked that the bugs bother people so much they can't play the game) then by all means wait for the patch.

2) Serial code vs. Activation - I think we would all prefer the slightly easier serial code. However, for piracy reasons I guess, many companies are looking for alternatives. It really is not difficult, takes a couple minutes at most.

3) thewood said

I still can't believe that some people can't just admit there is something wrong with this game right now.

I don't think anyone says there aren't problems, the issue is how much they affect what you in particular are looking for. QBs are still pretty awful (to the best of my knowledge I haven't heard anyone say 'hey I like the new model better'), the documentation is not very good, and there are bugs.

I have just stopped playing QBs, would like better documentation but don't need it, and never notice the bugs. It seems some people encounter a bug every couple minutes, I will play a few games and never have any problems.

4) Customer service - BFC is a small independent company. One of the key reasons people like going into business for themselves is they get to decide how to run things. If Steve thinks people are being jerks/stupid he is free to say so, it is his sales to gain/lose.

For whatever purpose, whether it be productivity, enjoyment, or plain old spite, Steve has moved away from the forum. If that is what it takes for them to work harder on the patch than so be it.

Outside that though BFC has provided excellent customer service. They work very hard on patches and have always been prompt (with me at least) on emails.

5) Done with it is done - Before the game was released their was people on the board begging for it, pleading for every little update imaginable.

That got us 1.01.

Let's just get back to the done when it is done idea.

[thewood]

It wasn't people asking for it that got it released, it was BFC's agreement with Paradox.

1.01 was released because even BFC admitted it was unplayable for a large number of people.

After that, you may have a point that releases came to quell the noise.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by thewood:

It wasn't people asking for it that got it released, it was BFC's agreement with Paradox.

1.01 was released because even BFC admitted it was unplayable for a large number of people.

After that, you may have a point that releases came to quell the noise.

Quell the noise? No, I don't really think that was the impetus. Not that the noise wasn't there. Not that the noise wasn't justifiable (also over the top, Rude, and often childish). What drove BFC to work around the clock on the first set of patches was a desire to get the game on track. I doubt many would agree that BFC would have just sat on their hands if the game had been met with stony silence. Just look at their history. CMBO was met with universal acclaim...(except for the FPS "click Festers",CC RT people and a pretty large group of my SP brethren who all condemned it daily for months) Yet BFC patched it several times. Remember, too, that this game was out as a Demo several months before the release and had tons of player input yet still had flaws, bugs, and missing features. No, BFC didn't work their tails off because of any noise. They did so because that's the way they are.

[thewood]

I look at CMSF as basically CMSF beta demo, but paid for. I still think even the CMBO demo was a little bit better shape than CMSF.

[Mud]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

True enough... but engine fundamentals such as action spots or terrain approximations are one thing. HUI aspects are another. There would seem to be ways in which the game-playing experience might be improved without requiring fundamental redesigns, significant rebalancing of existing scenarios, massive DARPA grants for AI research, or the like.

Ex. -- turn-based, given that modern combat can be rapidly lethal (all those RPGs in Mission 2, for instance), vehicle count is usually small enough that a single loss is significant, and vehicle TacAI is not particularly trustworthy over a full minute, the ability to set shorter turns or even variable-length turns would provide greater ability to provide appropriate human-intervention in lieu of death-by-TacAI-failure-to-react. By 'variable turns', think condition-based autopause, like the new spotting of an opponent, destruction of a vehicle, movement orders being complete, or friendly units giving an all-clear of sorts after eliminating all spotted enemies on whom they've had LOS/LOF. Even just allowing turns of shorter fixed duration might help.

Ex. -- RT, there is an utter lack of message log, minimap, unit roster, alerts regarding contacts or significant events (such as vehicle loss or clear threat to vehicle), units reporting that they're being hit by air/artillery, units reporting in after being completely idle for some time, or so forth. This is not particularly good from a coordination point of view, or for dealing with situations in which the TacAI is not sufficient. For a complex situation, such as when you're breaching an airbase at multiple locations, it becomes too easy to focus too much on one particular sector while neglecting others -- because the game won't remind you.

Concrete example -- aircraft have begun strafing near a Syrian position. It is not clear that the TacAI should be capable of figuring out a response (hunker down, move, whatever) -- this depends on a variety of factors. That the fact that the position has been deemed worthy of attention from US airpower is, however, quite possibly worth notifying the Syrian player -- especially in RT where he may be obliviously examining some other sector of the battlefield. The appearance of an AT asset in an area which had not yet been suspected to have any would be a similar noteworthy event for the US player. It would be unreasonable to expect the game to 'correctly' adjust the orders of all nearby AFVs, but letting the player know that -he- might want take some action does not seem unreasonable.

An obvious enhancement of a message log would be one that can be saved for use when writing an AAR... although you'd want a way to indicate coordinates.

There's other, more minor things which could be added (ex. spotter with multiple missions ongoing, should visually indicate -which- target area corresponds to a selected mission; if it does already, it's subtle about it) or explained (the mysterious green dots with support assets, say). The ability to de-acquire equipment would seem quite reasonable, compared to guessing whether you'll need the Javelins and trying not to overestimate. A sanity check in QBs, such as "do both sides actually have a positive number of units", perhaps coupled with "reroll for a finite number of times, and report a suspicion of incompatible settings if we fail 'em all" should not be difficult.

'course, maybe I'm just overly frustrated by HUI factors. The lack of notifications/minimap won't matter quite as much down the line when it's actually possible to have multiple human players for one side, as well -- more micromanagers to go around.

Meh. Haven't posted for a long time, haven't really been inclined to play much since 1.04, and it would be (pleasantly) very surprising to me if 1.05 changes this significantly. Back to lurking.

[thewood]

Mud, when BFC talked about CMSF being the next stage of development in the CM franchise, those are the kinds of things I was hoping for. Not taking away things that had already been put in. Granted 1:1, RT, and better graphics are a step forward, but the rest of the things you mentioned are really needed to make those advancements viable.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Mud:

By 'variable turns', think condition-based autopause, like the new spotting of an opponent, destruction of a vehicle, movement orders being complete, or friendly units giving an all-clear of sorts after eliminating all spotted enemies on whom they've had LOS/LOF. Even just allowing turns of shorter fixed duration might help.

Now that would be sweet for the real-time as well. Maybe a list of report/pause boxes for given conditions. I'm sure paradox would approve! Heck, make it global/unit specific so your point guys can pause the game at the drop of a hat while globally distant contacts are worthy of a notification only.

Ex. -- RT, there is an utter lack of message log, minimap, unit roster, alerts regarding contacts or significant events (such as vehicle loss or clear threat to vehicle), units reporting that they're being hit by air/artillery, units reporting in after being completely idle for some time, or so forth. This is not particularly good from a coordination point of view, or for dealing with situations in which the TacAI is not sufficient. For a complex situation, such as when you're breaching an airbase at multiple locations, it becomes too easy to focus too much on one particular sector while neglecting others -- because the game won't remind you.

Also very good ideas there. And I think perfectly plausible to bolt on the existing engine. Maybe not for a "module" but for next game on the series for sure. CMBO->CMBB style improvements within the engine as it was.

And taking this a bit further, if the event log is click-able with jump to relevant spot.. Even better.