i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop

[SlapHappy]

And this from a review:

If the Advanced rules (and most of the Optional rules) are played, there’ll be a lot of looking up tables and charts and dice rolling: nothing too much for a hard-core wargamer but may be too tiresome for even a moderate wargamer. But where the game shines is in its attention to historical detail. The most impressive part in the whole game is the lists of different squad make-ups and the table of equipment of different countries, some of which do not exist today (South Vietnam and Rhodesia, to name a few). For added historical significance, the reference cards provide game stats of actual equipment from the well-known like the M16 and AK47 rifle to the M1 Abrams and T-72 tank, as well as lesser known equipment like the Japanese KAM3D anti-tank missile. Players would be able to find a squad and its associated equipment to play out any action, viz., Vietnam War, the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Indo-Pakistani Wars and the Rhodesian conflict. This game would be tedious if it was just Army A vs. Army B but if you’re interested in the Vietnam War, playing out an NVA attack on a US Special Forces camp would be very exciting indeed. With some research, players can even game out hypothetical scenarios like the 2nd Korean War and the Chinese invasion of Taiwan. My own favourite scenario is the recreation of the events depicted in the Black Hawk Down movie and book!

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

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.

I for one doubt that. The only demo BFC produced that was worth the time expended was that of CMBO. CMBB and CMAK's demos were far from exciting, and if I had been a first time buyer at those times, I probably would have skipped CM altogether.

I didn't mind all the bugs in the CMSF demo. I just found the whole experience to be rather dull, and...well, NOT Combat Mission.

[Battlefront.com]

Darren J Pierson

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.

We decided to wait until we had the framerate improved more and some of the things that weren't completely fixed by v1.03 fixed up better. We feel v1.04 has already acheived those goals so we will be putting out a v1.04 demo.

BeahCoupDinkyDau (man I hate your new name!)

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.

We already did... you just don't happen to like it. Your loss.

It really doesn't matter how much you whine, nor how many times you change your Forum name, nor how difficult you make it to write out easily... CM:WW2 will not be a throwback to CMx1. CMx2 will not fundamentally change as you want it to.It is what it is, so either accept it or move onto something else because otherwise you're just wasting your time.

I for one doubt that. The only demo BFC produced that was worth the time expended was that of CMBO. CMBB and CMAK's demos were far from exciting, and if I had been a first time buyer at those times, I probably would have skipped CM altogether.

Oh if only

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by dalem:

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.

I never saw Firepower the boardgame, but there is an even older miniatures game called Firepower that sounds surprisingly the same. I wonder if Avalon Hill just boardgamed the miniatures game

[Panzer76]

I suspected this would happen. Simply, CMSF does not offer the variation and longlivety that we become used to. In addition to the improvments in the game design, they also removed some very core game issues, that for me, totally ruined this game.

Anyways, I suspect the ones saying they are just waiting for 1.04, will be here much later and saying the same about 1.05, 06, 07...

[Thomm]

After a break of some days I got to play CM:SF at the airport waiting for boarding!

I have to say that, somehow, the scenarios I played looked too good with the 1.03 improvements to be CM (maybe I was high on sleep deprivation). And all this on a business laptop that can barely start current generation PC games!

The one stock scenario I started (the 3rd or 4th in the list) had my Stryker company starting in the open and spotting an approaching tank formation behind some buildings! I lost a few vehicles quickly until I got my act together and organized the counter-attack ... a lot of suspense!

For me, the game is good fun!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Steiner14]

But CMx1 was not fun. It was passion and dedication. You slept one night before deciding for a tactic against a good oponent, you learned the map and thought all day long while doing other things, where it would be best to place certain units. You thought, what the oponent will do and how you can overcome his plans. It had the potential to ruin your social life.

On the other hand i'm happy this did not happen with CMSF again. In the meanwhile i've even lost interest and don't even wait for the next patch. The ol magic is somehow gone but my wish to install CMBB again, is coming back now...

[Thomm]

CMx1 was having to sit 4 hours in front of the computer to play a one hour scenario. 1.5 hours out of those 4 were spent moving to contact.

This is how I remember CMx1!

How did you put it: But CMx1 was not fun.

Best regards,

Thomm

[fritzthemoose]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

CMx1 was having to sit 4 hours in front of the computer to play a one hour scenario. 1.5 hours out of those 4 were spent moving to contact.

This is how I remember CMx1!

How did you put it: But CMx1 was not fun.

Best regards,

Thomm

if u want to establish a strategy or tatctics u need the possibility to start out of sight of your opponent.

of course if u like a slugfest out of the setup zones cm1 will not do it

[Sirocco]

With CMx1 the dread was walking into an AT gun ambush. You'd have your tanks and infantry chewed up in no time at that point of contact. With CMx2 you're always in an AT gun ambush because of the lethality and accuracy of modern weapons. In effect CMSF distills CMx1 into those really sharp and lethal moments.

[thewood]

Most of the CMSF scenarios I have played seem like there is a more of a variety of tactics, but no strategy...if that makes any sense.

In CM1, I spent a lot of time on set up and positioning in the first minutes of the game. Most of CMSF has you already in the thick of it, many times with enemy fire hitting you in the first minute.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Anyways, I suspect the ones saying they are just waiting for 1.04, will be here much later and saying the same about 1.05, 06, 07...

Maybe for some, might be untill after 1.05 that I get serious about giving CMSF another long look, or untill the 8800 / CMSF thing is addressed. Based on what Steve wrote in the tech support forum as soon as they get most of the customers issues straightened out with the 1.04 patch they're going to hit the 8800 issue hard.

[KNac]

At this point, after reading the thread, I think we need fresh aproach in new scenarios. It can be done and indeed I think it has been done by some users, new scenarios with a classic flavour. More maneourver space but keep forces small and varied terrain, it keeps the game interesting.

Minimizing the game bugs & weapons lethality is key for a more funny game.

[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 lioke 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.

[General_solomon]

Is there a way to tweak the game ourselves to decrease the weapons lethality. Like knac said this will give players room to maneouver.

If this can be done, the game will have a new life. most of us like games where you can move troops around even under fire.

special request to BF: give us the option to decrease the lethality of the weapons.

thanks a bunch.

[Dirtweasle]

I don't think so.

Probably the best way would be to increase the map size around the edges / margins where applicable to give room to maneuver before having to engage.

[thewood]

I heard the Iraqi army in 1991 asked BFC to fix or do sumfink.

[KNac]

Hehehe

I don't think weapons need to be tweaked down, the maps need to be larger and not plain (cover, different altitudes, etc.). Actually, with extended times and at the speed units can travel, specially mechanized forces, large maps are not a big deal while playing.

Other question may be avergae computer able to run em, but as long as you keep forces small I don't think it would be a problem.

[ September 20, 2007, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[wolf66]

Fix or do sumfink .....

[Runyan99]

I wonder what ever happened to that guy.

[Mishga]

Last I heard he was staying with his Mum in Baghdad. Looking for a job in PR.

[combatsf]

in real life wars aren't as funny as cmsf.so we must thank to battlefront.and what do you think this child is doing right now???

[dalem]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Understood, but the scale of the game needn't necessarily have been as small in a computerized version as you point out... Have you played the game Dale? What was your opinion of it? I think it would have made for an interesting digital port.....

My opinion of Firepower? Sure, played it years ago when it first came out and I liked it. I think it was fun, but I've played rulesets at similar scales that are more manageable - Battleground: WWII for one.

Now, as far as making Firepower a computer game, they pretty much already have, with all these 1:1 team-play online shooters that exist. For myself, it's not a scale that interests me on the PC - with RT that scale is too much about reflexes and not about game play. I'm a wargamer, not a twitcher.

-dale

[MikeyD]

"...the sooner they'll give us something that can actually be called Combat Mission again."

Oh pu-leeeeease! Enough with the "Its just not CMx1" crap! I fired up my dusty old mac to play CMAK for the first time in months and it was P-A-I-N-F-U-L! Maybe traffic's slacked off on this board because the peolpe who are happily playing the game simply can't stomach the constant unstoppable kvetching that goes on here. Though I keep foolishly coming back I've just about given up on this board - and it has nothing do with the qualities of the game.

[dalem]

Originally posted by BeauCoupDinkyDau:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

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.

I for one doubt that. The only demo BFC produced that was worth the time expended was that of CMBO. CMBB and CMAK's demos were far from exciting, and if I had been a first time buyer at those times, I probably would have skipped CM altogether.

I didn't mind all the bugs in the CMSF demo. I just found the whole experience to be rather dull, and...well, NOT Combat Mission. </font>