Jump to content

i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop


scottie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...