I'm worried about the WWII release.

[Si32]

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I think this does not bode well for the future CMx2 WWII releases.

IMHO, CMx1 is a better game/system with only the exception of the graphics. Look what better graphics and real time play has done to the series. The A.I is quite appalling if it isn't micromanaged constantly, which has pretty much killed the WEGO system and most peoples favourite way of playing: PBEM. I just can't bare to think about how halftracks are going to behave when faced with a tank. Are they going to stay where they are and pepper the enemy AFV with MG rounds? My guess is yes. Without more development work and bringing back the turn compile the A.I will never be as good as in CMx1.

Steve has already said there will never be a QB unit purchase option in any CMx2 games, which means the longevity of the game for me (and I guess many others) will be drastically reduced. We're not all cherry pickers, and like a few others have mentioned, being able to spend time thinking and purchasing your force always was half the fun of a QB.

I understand they have to make money, and clearly wern't making enough money from the niche market that CMx1 was. I'm just very dissapointed they have strayed so far from thier roots that they have actually gone backwards.

SF isn't a bad game, but it's not a scratch on CMBB/CMAK as a serious tactical 3D wargame. I'm not even looking forward to the WWII release anymore, but hopefully my opinion will change in the coming year once(if) they fix Shock Force.

I would have preferred if they had updated CM with a new graphics engine and 1 to 1 representation, then stuck on real time play as an afterthought so it would appeal to the masses.

Don't fix what isn't broken in the first place.

[Michael Dorosh]

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

If anyone can present a logical and balanced system for point purchase that they prove can be workable, fun, and manageable, I'd love to see it presented here in Excel or whatever format you choose.

I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done.

[Cid250]

It's simple... I will not buy a Real Time CM based on WWII, since Real Time games with such a big degree of complexity are just a pain in the ass for good gameplay Player vs Player. And it's clear that the focus in the design of CMSF goes to the RT... by far!.

I doesn't feel the need to buy a CombatMission game centered on RTS when we have already many others much funnier and less complex to manage for real time... Real Time, why?... Theater of War it's already for that!.

Without a completely new design, entirely focused in WEGO gameplay... specially with mandatory (TCP/IP) support: I will not buy it, even if it's focused on my favorite WWII theater.

I did the mistake to preorder CMSF based on the great experience with CMBB & CMAK... But i will not make that mistake again. I will only download the demo of a possible future new CM based on WWII, only if i read in the features this sentence: "dropped suppot to REAL TIME, fully WEGO focused game including WEGO over TCP/IP".

If Battlefront doesn't have any interest on keeping the nice WEGO wargaming as the main and unique focus on their designs, i doesn't have any interest in their games anymore. Speedy Click fest in Player Versus Player aren't for me. I'm a wargamer, for the love of god!.

Expect many bad reviews on the core wargaming magazines, since this product is a big steep backwards.

Doesn't change what it works!... The purchase system of any future WWII release, should be just the same than CMBB and CMAK.

[ July 29, 2007, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

[thewood]

As far as I am concerned I don't need a point purchasing system. Just make a little easier to build quick battles with forces I want. I play against the AI or friends and we can work out the balance ourselves.

[LuckyStrike]

Edit: just read thewood's reply above, my feelings exactly. It doesn't need to even have a points system. Why can't I just select different forces so that I can set up interesting tactical situations?

[gibsonm]

Guys (gals?) can I suggest that over the development cycle of CM:SF a lot of the issues raised so far will be dealt with.

I think you will find 1.02 will address the most pressing issues and 1.03 perhaps look at adding new features in response to people's feedback (Steve has already made some posts about at least thinking about some of the issues raised).

I don't know if a purchasing system will fly though (personally I'm against it and for using "proper structures" - but that is just me).

I suspect that by the time CMx2 Second World war comes around, CM:SF will have evolved into a more stable and detailed product, just as happened between ver 1.0 of CMBO and ver 1.03 of CMAK.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

No one but you is asking for a perfect system. If every feature that some people whine about was removed from the game the CMSF disk would be blank.

[Si32]

Exactly thewood. I would be doing that anyway with people I know and trust. I already play QB's where we used the editor to purchase our forces,it's far more flexible, but that's made easier with an actual point value for everything.

Would I use the editor to choose forces when playing someone I didn't know? No chance.

Anyway, please don't make this into another QB purchase debate, there's another thread for that. There are other issues that are more important that need to be fixed for the WWII game.

I'm not going to threaten that I won't buy it, because I most likely will regardless. I want another WWII game that I can play for years as I have with the CMx1 games. I don't possibly see that happening with what we have "upgraded" to here.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

No one but you is asking for a perfect system. If every feature that some people whine about was removed from the game the CMSF disk would be blank. </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't own the game. And even if I did the unit stats are hidden in CMSF.

[Fetchez la Vache]

But surely at some point in a QB the relative strengths of the opposing forces have to be compared in order to determine the "winner" and "loser"? You don't have to start the battle with exactly equal forces, but the outcome has to be judged accordingly.

For example a couple of Stryker platoons vs. a group of truck-mounted unconventional combatants (as someone else showed in some screen shots). No way the Syrians are going to eliminate all the US troops, but if they can destroy a Strykers or inflict +10 casualties they maybe they've "won". Although I haven't played out many QB's myself (tellingly I've yet to play one to it's full conclusion) I believe that the outcome screen will try to do this. Hence there must be some sort of weighting system in CMSF already?

I can see the reasoning behind not having a points system for individual assets in CMSF, given the importance of having units within a C2 framework. However some overall weighting between combat groups needs to be made in order for people to set up QB with other opponents - no need to weight every vehicle and man in the game?

[thewood]

One game that has done a commendable job with modern warfare and point purchasing systems is SPMBT. It is far from perfect, but it at least gets units in the ballpark. This came directly from the original SP series, which also had a workable point system for WW2 hardware.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

But surely at some point in a QB the relative strengths of the opposing forces have to be compared in order to determine the "winner" and "loser"? You don't have to start the battle with exactly equal forces, but the outcome has to be judged accordingly.

For example a couple of Stryker platoons vs. a group of truck-mounted unconventional combatants (as someone else showed in some screen shots). No way the Syrians are going to eliminate all the US troops, but if they can destroy a Strykers or inflict +10 casualties they maybe they've "won". Although I haven't played out many QB's myself (tellingly I've yet to play one to it's full conclusion) I believe that the outcome screen will try to do this. Hence there must be some sort of weighting system in CMSF already?

I can see the reasoning behind not having a points system for individual assets in CMSF, given the importance of having units within a C2 framework. However some overall weighting between combat groups needs to be made in order for people to set up QB with other opponents - no need to weight every vehicle and man in the game?

The weighting system you're talking about are asymmetric victory conditions. They're a feature of the scenario editor. They are enormously complex. And pretty difficult to implement on the fly. Another "balancing" tool to be sure - but impossible to implement in a contextless environment such as a point purchase system.

[gibsonm]

Fetchez la Vache,

But you have forgotten that the victory conditions now are not necessarily based on each sides "points".

If the Syrians victory conditions are based on "destroy all Strykers = 500 points" then at the end of the battle it sees if there are any Strykers left and awards the points accordingly. If the victory conditions are set to "destroy Strykers = 500 points" and there is a platoon (4 vehicles) then each vehicle is worth 125 points.

If there are 10 vehicles they are only worth 50 points each.

It is not an absolute scale of 1 Stryker = X points. Its relative to what the designer designs.

There is a whole section of the Scenario Designer Manual (which has its own thread) which covers this issue.

[ July 29, 2007, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

And yet Steve says they will probably implement a random map generator at some point. I would think that would be harder than letting people buy their own units.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Si32:

The A.I is quite appalling if it isn't micromanaged constantly, which has pretty much killed the WEGO system and most peoples favourite way of playing: PBEM.

Would you care to expand on exactly how the friendly AI in the old games is superior to that in CMSF?

In my experience, I've found two reactions to the quality of the older games AI (friendly or otherwise):

1) The enemy AI is tough (and if it were any harder, I couldn't win every time that I played it).

2) Yeah, it's lame, but the game's really meant for multi-player, so it's shortcomings in this respect don't undermine the integrity of the design.

Micromanagement? Please, elaborate. We're all eyes.

PoE

[Fetchez la Vache]

Sure Michael, I can see that and get your point. But we could do with a system whereby you can pick a "Stryker inf platoon plus a Humvee with sniper squad" force against a "Large group of uncon fighters with IEDs" in a Town, and be told in the QB setup what victory conditions needs to be achieved by each side. As I understand you, that is being done in the scenario editor already and what else are computers good except complex calculations?

So I still feel that "points" aren't needed, but a transparent method of comparison is still required at some level.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Sure Michael, I can see that and get your point. But we could do with a system whereby you can pick a "Stryker inf platoon plus a Humvee with sniper squad" force against a "Large group of uncon fighters with IEDs" in a Town, and be told in the QB setup what victory conditions needs to be achieved by each side. As I understand you, that is being done in the scenario editor already and what else are computers good except complex calculations?

They only calculate what you're able to quantify in the first place, though. How much time would it take to assign a numerical value to every unit in the game, and then every permutation of terrain, force composition, mission, AI plan, and the interaction between all of the above, including the different levels of training, fitness, etc. that are included in CM, the different equipment levels etc.? You have to quantify all that first before you can make a single calculation.

Bear in mind that infantry squads now, for example, have different resources based on the equipment state. So a numerical value is not based solely on level of training and level of fitness but also now level of equipment (better troops have more up to date goodies). This all would need to be reflected in the point purchase system.

If someone in the community wanted to tackle it, I think it could be done. I think there are bigger fish to fry as far as the development team goes. There may be one or two suggestions out in the community about that, come to think of it.

Transparent or not, computers can only compare numbers, and at some point, a human has to assign them explicitly to each and every unit based on its merits. A huge job.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Si32:

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I think this does not bode well for the future CMx2 WWII releases.

You are absolutely not being pessimistic. The CM WEGO franchise as we know it has been sold out in favour of chasing the riches which apparently lie in the RT market $, a much less demanding task at that. Thanks BF. CMx1 was the best seiries of computer wargames I ever played. At least I can still play CMx1.

Stop holding your breath about a modern revision of the CMx1 concept (well as far as any offering from BF is concerned). It just is not on the cards for BF. Hope some other game company picks up/adopts the CMx1 WEGO concept that BF so painstakingly created but have now conciously abandoned in favour of chasing RT $. It really is hard to come to terms with the fact that the firstborn baby that BF created, rasied and nutured, is being dumped on the sidewalk and neglected in favour of their new "sexier looking" (and apparently more profitable) RT-centric mutation involving the latest designer RT DNA. Just the RT name alone mkes this new baby certian to attract more attention than the dorky/ugly/unfashionable WEGO name that their original first born was intrinsically tied to.

So either start brushing up on your PC interface skills (anyoine got any good recommendations for the best mouse to use for RT?) or go back to playing CMx1.

If you can't beat them, join them.

I understand they have to make money, and clearly wern't making enough money from the niche market that CMx1 was. I'm just very dissapointed they have strayed so far from thier roots that they have actually gone backwards.

Do not believe for one moment that we are seeing anything at all of a "natural/inevitable evolution" from CMx1 WEGO syetem to a CMx2 RT-centric system. I personally see it as a de-evolution, or even as some kind of sad looking mutation. It is no more an "evolution" of a game system as what making a RT version of the game of chess would be and still think you can call it chess.

[ July 29, 2007, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[thewood]

Looking up overreaction in the dictionary and this post is there.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Gibsonm, I personally don't need to see the points per asset. But I do need to know when I start a QB what victory conditions I should be aiming for before the start of hostilities given the relative stengths of the opposing forces. That requires some form of measurement as I see it, albeit one that doesn't have to assigned 50 points for a M1126.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

Would you care to expand on exactly how the friendly AI in the old games is superior to that in CMSF?

I think he is referring to the TacAI that controlled unit behavior in CMx1, e.g. a light tank popped smoke and retreated if confronted with a far superior enemy.

At least in the demo a Stryker facing a T72 does nothing, just stands there and sometimes decides to attack the T72 with 0,50 cal. (with obvious results).

The TacAI was a strength of CMx1. Yes, it produced undesired results in some cases, therefore I expected improvements in CMx2. Not only because I wanted it but because even before the launch I was convinced that in a RT environment only a good TacAI can prevent micromanagement.

It just comes a such a big surprise that they left out many great features of CMx1 that worked perfectly and that many people loved.

There were so many threads about features we wanted for CMx2, who would have thought that threads about what we wanted to keep from CMx1 would have been more appropriate.

I give them the benefit of doubt that they'll improve CMSF. But unless they improve it a lot I'd have preferred an improved CMx1 engine with up to date graphics.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board.

If anyone can present a logical and balanced system for point purchase that they prove can be workable, fun, and manageable, I'd love to see it presented here in Excel or whatever format you choose.

I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done.

Oh Michael it doesn't even have to BE points-based. But if you want points, fine.

AFV:

Light armor = 10 pts

Light gun = 10 pts

Coax MG = 5 pts

Bow MG = 5 pts

Med gun = 15 pts

Med armor = 15 pts

Heavy gun = 20 pts

Heavy armor = 20 pts

Turreted = 10 pts

Fast turret = 15 pts

Slow = 5 pts

Med = 7 pts

Fast = 10 pts

There you go.

-dale

[Bruce70]

BF and Steve in particular are adamant that the bulk of their customers play vs the AI. They must also realise that many of those players play QBs.

So a points system, and even victory conditions, are irrelevant for a very large number of people who play QBs. Some people just like to experiment and can decide for themselves if it's a victory or not. JasonC gave a good example in another thread.

Having said that, I'm quite happy to start with a standard formation and then prune it down to what I want.