dalem Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by Panzer76: I suspected this would happen. Simply, CMSF does not offer the variation and longlivety that we become used to. CM:SF isn't supposed to though - CMx2 overall is. I may not like what direction BFC is going in, but I think they've been pretty clear about describing it over time. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Hi, I am a fan of CMSF and even more of a fan of CMX2 engine….. but I have never denied that the setting of CMSF has limited shelf live. When it comes to scenarios it does not have as long legs a mainstream WWII setting would have. Unless you wish to see a one sided massacre scenarios seems to take the form of Syrian infantry of some type, supported by modern Russian AT weapons, defending against mechanise US forces. Each to their own but there is a limit to how often I can play such scenarios and enjoy them. If in the next module BFC add OPFORs/NTC type Red forces weapons, late module T90s and such…. this will help a lot. But the setting will never have the replay value a mainstream WWII setting would have…. in my view . Still…it makes a change… . All good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOG Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The best thing that could happen to CMSF is going out of Syrian conflict and evolving the game into something like Steel Panthers 2, where you could choose forces from about 30 countries, and any time setting from 1945 to 1999. Of course the forcepool and organisation of units would never be absolutly correct but you had the ability to make almost any battle you could imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by TOG: The best thing that could happen to CMSF is going out of Syrian conflict and evolving the game into something like Steel Panthers 2, where you could choose forces from about 30 countries, and any time setting from 1945 to 1999... IIRC the CMx2 series is planned to go back to WWII. But, CMSF will have a couple additional modules in the mean time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I think alot of people are missing the tactical challenges of the CMx1 games. This is not because CMSF is not good at what it does, it's just that a desert war with modern precision weapons does not offer the same opportunities for a decent tactical chess game like the battles we had in previous WW2 titles. Imagine how different your CMx1 experience would have been if your Afrika Korps had Javelins and highly accurate mortar support, or the British 8th Army had Abrams tanks. Maybe it's just that we are yet to adapt and learn how to get the most out of this new game environment. [ September 20, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: bodkin ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DzrtFox Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I agree with you Bodkin, but when you combine the deadly accuracy of the weaponry with the poor pathfinding and little glitches that get your units killed, it is just too frustrating to deal with... Imagine in CMx1 if when you tried to move your tanks forward in a straight line they veered off to the side (exposing their flanks to enemy AT guns and tanks) to get there... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sitting Duck Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: More maneourver space but keep forces small and varied terrain, it keeps the game interesting. Yep, the canned QBs that I tried place everybody like right on top of each other. I like sneaking a round a while first, figuring out where the enemy is and finding good positions. So far, at least IMHO, the QBs are too tight. I have found this true for some of the canned scenarios, too. I hate starting out so many games with the Blue/Red setup positions "in view" of each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 QBG is hard at work creating large QB maps with good setup positions and cover to maneuver. It's one side of the equation we can do something about... Look for these in another week 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76: I suspected this would happen. Simply, CMSF does not offer the variation and longlivety that we become used to. CM:SF isn't supposed to though - CMx2 overall is. I may not like what direction BFC is going in, but I think they've been pretty clear about describing it over time. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76: I suspected this would happen. Simply, CMSF does not offer the variation and longlivety that we become used to. CM:SF isn't supposed to though - CMx2 overall is. I may not like what direction BFC is going in, but I think they've been pretty clear about describing it over time. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Hi, BTW I am not one of those who think CMX2 will have limited shelf life just because the settings are more focussed. The coming Normandy game… and hopefully later a mainstream Eastern Front setting such as Kursk… will have very long legs and last years. With the odd module added, even without, they will hold my interest for as long as CMBB… in fact longer as they will not have problems such as Borg Spotting. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Originally posted by MarkEzra: QBG is hard at work creating large QB maps with good setup positions and cover to maneuver. It's one side of the equation we can do something about... Look for these in another week Some of us are of the opinion that it shouldn't take a week's work by a team of other people to give us what CMx1 gave us in 5 minutes. No amount of bug fixes and Blue on Blue is going to change that. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I am more of the opinion that if a couple of weeks worth of work by people before release had put a swag of maps into the QB folder then nobody* would be complaining. I mean really, it is doesn't need programming skills. Having the qb just dump you out simply because there are no maps for the terrain type is just slack. Even one map in each category? *except everyone who would. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 CMx2WW2 will be a much more mature product. That in itself will be a huge plus point. The QB's, I have no doubt, will be fixed because CM needs the longer legs a good QB system gives it, and limited maps out of the box and no force picks is as flat as a pancake for replay value. The modules will also really broaden the base game in a manner I don't think the CMSF modules quite will, because of the greater nuances in equipment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Originally posted by Hoolaman: I am more of the opinion that if a couple of weeks worth of work by people before release had put a swag of maps into the QB folder then nobody* would be complaining. I mean really, it is doesn't need programming skills. Having the qb just dump you out simply because there are no maps for the terrain type is just slack. Even one map in each category? *except everyone who would. A few more weeks, months, or quarters wouldn't have changed the fundamental design philophy behind CMx2, and that design philosophy puts QBs in the far back of the bus. It's consistant with the desired turnover rate too. If you're planning on a batch of new BFC-built scenarios/campaigns with each module, every 6 months, you can hamstring the features that used to keep people coming back to the game for months by themselves. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Dalem, Don't be too hard on us QBG people. We are doing our best and giving up a large portion of family time to try and get something out there for people to enjoy. It's not CMx1, never will be, but we are doing what we can. I don't mean to challenge you on this but I feel that comment was a bit harsh considering we are doing this for the community. Things will get better and as it stands some of us even get enjoyment from the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Mishga, My reading of Dalem's comments wasn't a knock on your efforts. I think we all appreciate the work the community does for these games. I thought he was trying to say that the game probably should have shipped with the QB maps necessary. I, for one, appreciate the work everyone has done for mods, maps and scenarios 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Mmm Fair Point. Let's see what Dalem has to say whether he was denigrating the mapmaking or BFC for not doing it themselves. I have no issue with Dalem as a fellow forum dweller or person. Just wish for clarification as to the meaning of his wording. Yeah yeah, blame it on PMT or something 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I don't think he was diparaging your work. I think he was just pointing out that QB's were a lot easier to do in CM1. They were. Yes there were limitations, but I find the CMSF mapbuilder at the same time more powerful, but at the same time more tedious to use all that power. OOB selection doesn't exist, picking a map doesn't exist. I don't even bother with QB's. It is better for mr to just build a scenario on one of your maps and play hotseat with myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Ok, General view is I picked him up wrong. Fair play, sorry Dalem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I'm not enjoying SF as much as other CM games for one reason, the broken, imcomplete, and poorly implemented Quick Battles, until I can select my own and AI forces and fight my own type of battles quickly with resorting to the use of the editor. Sometimes you just want to play a game, and not design/edit it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeezgob Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Can't honestly say I've ever enjoyed it that much, so not much room for the enjoyment level to drop. For those who are continuing to enjoy it, that's great, but personally I'm not a fan of the new direction BFC have gone taken, or the way it's impacted on CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 The performance of the game actually decreased on my PC when I updated to 1.03. Isnt it suppose to get better, not worse? Now I am getting frame rates like 10-20 If CMSF was designed to have a shorter life/shelf life then previous CM games, then why it is taking months of patched to fix it, and it's still frustrating to play? Many people will stop playing it by this point, and move on to other things. The only thing in BFC's favor is that this is a nishe game, and there are not many games like it out there. That is still not an excuse to sell half-finished product. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra: QBG is hard at work creating large QB maps with good setup positions and cover to maneuver. It's one side of the equation we can do something about... Look for these in another week Some of us are of the opinion that it shouldn't take a week's work by a team of other people to give us what CMx1 gave us in 5 minutes. No amount of bug fixes and Blue on Blue is going to change that. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omenowl Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I am waiting for the next patch and that is because I would like to get the pathing issues fixed a bit. I do admit there is a huge difference between WW2 where I am willing to accept a lost of a platoon or company, but in CMSF i feel the pain of every wounded soldier. Overall though I think I am waiting for the mod community to do its thing. I think the ability to alter textures, etc was a major factor in my enjoyment of CMBO. Still I think once the major patches are out the game will have a great range of doing most cold war shootouts. I always wanted to see combat for the Fulda Gap. 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.