scottie Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 i was shouting about how good this game is for a good few weeks but lost interest over the last couple of week simply because of annoying path finding issue. its just simple thinks like trying to move a vehicle through a designed gap in the wall along a road ... first vehicle was ok ... second vehicle no matter what i tried would take another route past some known RPG positions ! units seem to assume to much in relation to path finding ... i prefer to micro manage things more. going to try and download a few users mission to see if i can get interest back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 It also seems forum traffic is off quite a bit. It was pretty busy for a while after 1.03, but seems pretty slow with a few regulars. Its not that much busier than the CMAK forums. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I haven't played -- or posted -- in a while. I think things'll pick up here and for me after 1.04 comes out. If that fixes enough issues, I'll probably get back to playing it. Until then, back to BioShock, Pirates! (still!?) and my own game programming work (which has helped to remind me just how hard this stuff is). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 It's not like I have unlimited time to play games anyhow, but I've been put off because of the CMSF / GeForce 8800 issues, plus the path finding and other minor little issues, but hope to give it another try when 1.04 comes out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I am starting to play CM:SF less and less too. It is just too frustrating at the moment to be called enjoyable. I work as a games tester and have to investigate and write up game bugs for a living, and yet I feel like I've been working harder at home trying to get CM:SF to work better on my machine and help others with problems than I do at work! I won't ever give up on CM:SF completely but my enthusiasm before release has definitely been dented. Maybe I should put CM:SF away for now and come back to it a long time in the future, like after Christmas, to see if things have improved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkmek Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Between football season and falling off the wagon(hic), CMSF is just too much work! Company of Heroes is still fun. Should I try the World in Conflict demo? I'll give CMSF another go in a month or so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I guess Steve was right. CMSF may not be for us old timers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 And yet another thread saying the same ole same ole............. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Seriously. It's almost like people have opinions and are expressing themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I tend to think its the modern setting. I thought it was going to be fun nailing Abrams with rpgs but the game is overkill. A simple pathfinding error, Los/Lof abstraction or wrong click can ruin the game with so much lethal arsenal all around. Add to this that the 99% of the maps are less than 1kmx1Km and you almost feel like fighting in a matchbox with laser beams. Why or why we dont get bigger maps with less units on them? All I play is 700x500m maps packed with 15 IFVs per side, which leads to a turkey shot from the setup zones. WW2 is going to showcase much better the engine of CMx2 and will be much more fun with the slower pace and the more forgiving weaponry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I have a question. To what extend are some players finding CMSF a little 'too close to home' to be fun, what with the situation in Iraq and all? Playing a WW2 wargame or a Napoleonic game can be a form of escape to another time, and thus is perhaps more 'fun'. Is playing CMSF and watching modern GIs getting blown to hell a little too much like watching the news these days to be 'fun'? I'm not really sure how I feel about it personally, but I suspect it is a factor for some. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: It also seems forum traffic is off quite a bit. It was pretty busy for a while after 1.03, but seems pretty slow with a few regulars. Its not that much busier than the CMAK forums. I agree wood. It seems be really quiet lately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lmgroth Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I find myself really trying to minimize casualties... and when they happen... getting some medic action going. I think it has made my tactics more conservative. That's why the multiple infantry survivability issues need to be resolved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 While i can understand BFC wanting to get out of the WWII setting (at least for a while) this fictional ToW doesn't really do anything for me. I still enjoy the game though and don't consider it money badly spent, but bring on WWII again with this engine + refinements + extras. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Well for me its hard to play red vs blue since I am a "red blooded American". I could always interchange the Russians and the Germans in CMBB And even play German vs the Americans in CMBO and AK. And if I lose any Americans in CMSF I know it "piles up into a political situation". Given that, the pathfinding does not allow for precise movemnt - like for a US special ops force. So I get losses even when the US troops involved would never in real life. I cant keep losses low enough to warrant the operations to begin with. WW2 is very distant and we know the losses were huge. We play WW2 wargames more detached. With CMSF the action could take place today. Today a road side strike is political victory (too some). You can capture the main objective get a squad killed claim victory - but not really. Yes, the forum traffic is way down. This is nothing like the CM1 releases. But I like the game and perhaps the increased mission focus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I'm getting really jumpy waiting for the 1.04 patch, I think about it constantly. I'm planning to restart the campaign after it comes out, so I dont have much to do other than wait or play Bioshock for the 3rd time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Play some smaller battles ... they ARE fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren J Pierson Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 A few of us are waiting for the 1.03 demo to try out before deciding on buying. It was said that that demo version would really let us see how a mature version of the game plays. Still no word yet, however. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I'm not sure about this "hypothetical Syrian-US conflict" theme in the game. I think a very interesting approach would have been to mimic an Avalon Hill title called "Firepower" introduced in 1984. It represented small unit tactics from a period around the mid 1950's to (what was then) current day. It modelled army types from Vietnamese to FNLA and many others. Firepower tried to take a very detailed approach to simulating infantry combat and was not a very successful board game because the players became bogged down in the minutia of the rule set. I was only able to play it successfully a handful of times. Vehicles and armor were present but downplayed in the game due to the relatively small scale of actions. However there was a veritable wealth of data for small arms and support weapons. Using a computer game platform it would have been interesting to see the emphasis placed on the infantry and the wide range of possibilities because of the different nationalities represented. I know Battlefront wanted to use a tightly focused theme for this iteration of the Combat Mission series, but a game that lets you traverse these different tactical possibilities would have been fascinating in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General_solomon Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 i was hoping this game was going to be street to street slug fest. maybe i dont know move my men, but it seems everytime i give the order half my squad is dead. i wish weapons were not so accurate so units have time to move. Iam not giving up on this game. BF keep up the good work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by SlapHappy: I'm not sure about this "hypothetical Syrian-US conflict" theme in the game. I think a very interesting approach would have been to mimic an Avalon Hill title called "Firepower" introduced in 1984. It represented small unit tactics from a period around the mid 1950's to (what was then) current day. It modelled army types from Vietnamese to FNLA and many others. Firepower tried to take a very detailed approach to simulating infantry combat and was not a very successful board game because the players became bogged down in the minutia of the rule set. I was only able to play it successfully a handful of times. Vehicles and armor were present but downplayed in the game due to the relatively small scale of actions. However there was a veritable wealth of data for small arms and support weapons. Using a computer game platform it would have been interesting to see the emphasis placed on the infantry and the wide range of possibilities because of the different nationalities represented. I know Battlefront wanted to use a tightly focused theme for this iteration of the Combat Mission series, but a game that lets you traverse these different tactical possibilities would have been fascinating in my opinion. Firepower is a miniatures games grafted onto a hexboard. You could call hexes inches and switch to 25mm figures and terrain and not have to change much at all to move it to the tabletop. Also, its focus is even lower than CM:SF is trying to be - in Firepower you can't really control much more than a squad + HW team, if that. Maybe add a small AFV for flavor. So a different scale with different requirements (no abstraction at all for terrain, for example). -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peleprodigy Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by Hawkmek: Company of Heroes is still fun. Should I try the World in Conflict demo? Absolutely, the game is tons of fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SlapHappy: I'm not sure about this "hypothetical Syrian-US conflict" theme in the game. I think a very interesting approach would have been to mimic an Avalon Hill title called "Firepower" introduced in 1984. It represented small unit tactics from a period around the mid 1950's to (what was then) current day. It modelled army types from Vietnamese to FNLA and many others. Firepower tried to take a very detailed approach to simulating infantry combat and was not a very successful board game because the players became bogged down in the minutia of the rule set. I was only able to play it successfully a handful of times. Vehicles and armor were present but downplayed in the game due to the relatively small scale of actions. However there was a veritable wealth of data for small arms and support weapons. Using a computer game platform it would have been interesting to see the emphasis placed on the infantry and the wide range of possibilities because of the different nationalities represented. I know Battlefront wanted to use a tightly focused theme for this iteration of the Combat Mission series, but a game that lets you traverse these different tactical possibilities would have been fascinating in my opinion. Firepower is a miniatures games grafted onto a hexboard. You could call hexes inches and switch to 25mm figures and terrain and not have to change much at all to move it to the tabletop. Also, its focus is even lower than CM:SF is trying to be - in Firepower you can't really control much more than a squad + HW team, if that. Maybe add a small AFV for flavor. So a different scale with different requirements (no abstraction at all for terrain, for example). -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I'm glad things appear to be slowing for CMSF already. I don't begrudge BFC any cash or anything, but the sooner you all stop buying/playing this, the sooner they'll give us something that can actually be called Combat Mission again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Got this from a Wiki: 1 ^ Close Assault by S. Craig Taylor was set in WW II and released by Yaquinto in 1983. It was reworked by Taylor as a modern game and released by Avalon Hill in 1984 as Firepower. One of the other "modern" games mentioned by Winter may be Ranger which deals with post WW II combat (released in 1984 by Omega Games). A much earlier game named City Fight had been released by SPI in 1979 and may also be what Winter refers to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.