Hate to say I told u so but.....

[Nick Schieben]

Nice babe ad accompanying beach terrain.

>>Nuthin more to say really. Guess the chickens are coming home to roost now eh boys.....?>>

I think the chickens have come home but are roosting anywhere else but this rosy-coloured forum

[Thomm]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

I'm sure Rollstoy would disagree.

But I do not mind!

There is enough for everybody:

Fabienne Nadarajah - Austrian Swimming Über-Goddess

Please note, how I carefully and dutifully selected the best picture for you!

Best regards,

Thomm

[MarkEzra]

It's what's missing: Bodacious battlefield babes.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Looks like cowering to me!

If she was cowering she'd have disappeared.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

Looks like cowering to me!

If she was cowering she'd have disappeared. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

I'd gladly walk into that one.

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

mediocre wargame why? bugs & unfinished features apart (product of early release).

Too hard, or downright impossible, to recreate specific battles from history or imagination.

-dale

[KNac]

Talking about game mechanics that's a plainly wrong statement, not to a fewer degree than CMx1 could. And even if it that was true, it would be due to:

a) bugs

unfinished features (cover & concealment & infantry combat over all IMO)

In short words: game engine does not prevent from that happening, if all, it's the CURRENT state of it.

Mediocre released state, not mediocre wargame.

[Feltan]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I'd gladly walk into that one.

You'll have to do the walking. If up to her, with the CMSF pathing algorithm , she'd end up in the adjacent building.

Regards,

Feltan

[dalem]

Originally posted by KNac:

Talking about game mechanics that's a plainly wrong statement, not to a fewer degree than CMx1 could. And even if it that was true, it would be due to:

a) bugs

unfinished features (cover & concealment & infantry combat over all IMO)

In short words: game engine does not prevent from that happening, if all, it's the CURRENT state of it.

Mediocre released state, not mediocre wargame.

Sure it's the engine that limits it.

Think about recreating a quick roadblock scenario with small, retreating, cobbled-together units. Certainly can't do it via a QB, and from what I understand about the editor it's not easy/possible to do it there either.

So that's a mediocre wargame at best.

-dale

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

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

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

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

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

What sand mod are you using? </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

I just wanna know what her muzzle velocity is.

But Steve said such stats are meaningless today.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

the feeling that i get from CMSF is that the game is missing too many features the designer intented it to have and the result is that i don't really know how the game is supposed to be played. perhaps there are just too many bugs, but i fear that there are whole features missing to make the game CLICK. we'll see after 6 months, i guess.

battlefront, please fix or sumfink.

[Bradley Dick]

I'm sorry, but I'm having no trouble using the mission editor to recreate an actual firefight(dramatized for entertainment).

[rammer4250]

sorry something went wrong!

KNAC

I have to disagree with you. The infantry doesn't play all that bad. In the first battle of the battle section I used my infantry to scout and then to suppress before I sent my Strykers forward. I lost one Stryker by mistake towards the end of the scenario. I mostly played with infantry only. I didn't even use javelins as I believe they are a little strong right now and only use them to eliminate really stubborn defenders. I didn't lose all that many infantry either (only 1 squad).

[ August 14, 2007, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

[rammer4250]

sorry double post!

[ August 14, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: rammer4250 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Ladies and gentlemen...The Lurker. *golf clap*

[Dennis50]

or is he stuttering?

[Guest]

Yeah, the editor is great. The problem for me comes when I tell a squad to assault a building and:

1) the assault element runs in through the door,

2) runs into a corner, and

3) gets slaughtered by the guys who stood there with their mouths open at the windows after five seconds of both sides standing around doing nothing.

Does that sound like a recreation of an actual firefight? I am no military guy, but I'm pretty sure the assault element should have done just about everything different. Even with tons of micro-management, the battle does *not* play out in any way that approaches the actual outcome of such a fight.

[Bradley Dick]

CQB is abstracted in this game. As are the contents of buildings. Just because you see a wide open room, doesn't mean that's what is there in the simulation. The combatants, if you can use your imagination, are actually in multi-roomed buildings that contain furniture and equipment.

[Guest]

Okay. How does that make my unit's assault results less unlikely?

So they entered an abstracted building (through a non-abstracted door after passing by non-abstracted windows) and fuffed around for several precious seconds looking for the enemy.

And then... they all die in an instant of non-abstracted shooting. Seriously, I don't think I've seen a non-one-sided CQB situation in the hundreds that I've played through so far.

Edit: Actually, that raises an interesting question. If building interiors are abstractly complicated, why can't different sides be unaware of each other in the same building during a nasty firefight?

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

the feeling that i get from CMSF is that the game is missing too many features the designer intented it to have and the result is that i don't really know how the game is supposed to be played.

There are no missing features in CM:SF as far as I'm concerned. Sure, I have a wish list of features that would take another 3 years to program, but guess what? This is pretty much the same wishlist I had from CMBO that wasn't fulfilled in CMBB or CMAK either

What is true is there are features in CMx1 that are not in CMx2. They are not "missing" since we never intended on putting them in. It is like eating icecream with walnuts in it, then eating some with pistachioes, then another type with almonds. Then the icecream company says "we're going to do something very different" and some of the old customer say "Great, they are going to put in macademia nuts!" and the maker instead introduces icecream that has coffeebeans covered in chocolate. No nuts at all in it. Are the nuts "missing"? Nope. So some of the orignial customers say "awe, NUTS!" and the other say "uuuuummmm Java mocha chip... how the heck did I ever live without this before!"

Just trying to broaden my horizons by not including another car metaphore

Steve

[Guest]

Honestly, I think that the abstractions are confusing. Bradley Dick tells me that CQB is abstracted, unlike the dozens of events that take place around it -- but it doesn't *look* abstracted, it just looks like it's broken.

LOS appears to be abstracted as well, and people are up in arms about it... I think I'd personally feel as if less things were broken if I knew exactly where you guys drew the line on abstractions.

As for CQB... if it's just an abstraction, please fix it so that everyone doesn't just up and die when you get a chance.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just trying to broaden my horizons by not including another car metaphor

Steve

LET IT GO STEVE!!!

But in all honesty, to Phillip - yes, I think an honest examination of what is abstract and what is not would be good. I'll repeat my call for "Designer's Notes" here, as well as an appraisal of what is abstract in 1:1 and not. Hopefully the 1:1 training thread will be a start for us to sort through what we can expect from the engine in the months and years to come.

[H.W. Guderian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

InvaderCanuk,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When, and only when LOS is not abstracted I might think about purchasing another Battlefront title.

All I can do is honestly advise you to start looking for a substitute.

I don't understand the decision to represent the game at the 1:1 level and then decide to abstract LOS. Bullets flying through the ground, through walls and through multiple buildings is unacceptable.

Some of these are the results of bugs, not of abstractions. There is a difference.

The decision has been explained in detail in several threads. The short of it is this... LOS is the most computationally intensive game element, possibly excepting pathing. It was directly simulated in CMx1 because the terrain and units were so massively abstracted. Therefore, we had the horsepower to do direct LOS because it really didn't mean anything special to do it since we didn't have to be very precise about it. Now that units are not abstracted to the same degree (hardly at all), and terrain is vastly more complex, a modest about of LOS abstraction is required. The end result is that CM:SF, with its abstracted LOS, is still far more accurate than CMx1 was with its highly abstracted terrain and units.

But if you don't see it that way, and instead wish to focus on a single tree instead of the forest, that is your choice. The choice, however, means you will never buy another Combat Mission game for a VERY long time because the LOS abstraction will remain for the life of the CMx2 engine. If, however, you really mean getting the abstracted LOS to work properly within the context of the game, then stick around. We'll have that in a fairly short length of time.

Steve [/QB]</font>