dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Come on. If it's so easy - and I'm not saying it is or isn't - then let us see your point system. If it's good enough, maybe they'll even include it. Flies and vinegar and honey and all that. But Michael, Steve has said it's not the point-calculation that is stopping it (although he certainly thinks it's no small thing) but the basic C&C mechanism. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Come on. If it's so easy - and I'm not saying it is or isn't - then let us see your point system. If it's good enough, maybe they'll even include it. Flies and vinegar and honey and all that. But Michael, Steve has said it's not the point-calculation that is stopping it (although he certainly thinks it's no small thing) but the basic C&C mechanism. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Dale is partially correct. The primary reason was C&C, the second reason is that we really don't want to get into another point pissing match like we did in CMx1. It was annoying to the point of major distraction. The point balancing is even more difficult in CM:SF for reasons I've raised either in this thread or some other thread. How do you point balance an Abrams with ANYTHING on the Syrian side? In the correct circumstances the only way to kill the Abrams is to have more taks than the Abrams has ammo. In other situations one dude with an RPG to the flank can quite nicely knock it out. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si32 Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Steve Can you at least consider bringing back the points system for the WW2 release? You already have a points sytem in place that most of us are happy with, or accepted in CMx1. Also, considering the ad hoc nature of many WWII battles, "mixing it up" is well within the realms of possibility. I'd argue there should be more ad hoc in shock force, but you've made it clear it's not going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Heck I just read Steve's post on performance/stability issues, and I just ordered a Intel Duel Core 6600 and new graphics card 8800 NVIDIA.....good thing I have not ordered the game.....Man, with all these issues and problems concerning CMSF, I am going to try and get a TCIP game of CMBB going or at least a PBEM. Also I wish someone at BFC would "sell" me on this game. 1:1 is not, nor ever was a factor for me, nor the graphics, (although they are very nice). What makes it so much better than CM1, how does CMSF make a better Company Level wargame than CM1? I keep hearing that, and it may be, but list specifically what are the exact improvements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Zemke: Also I wish someone at BFC would "sell" me on this game. 1:1 is not, nor ever was a factor for me, nor the graphics, (although they are very nice). What makes it so much better than CM1, how does CMSF make a better Company Level wargame than CM1? I keep hearing that, and it may be, but list specifically what are the exact improvements. LOL! * Relative spotting (obviously working so well, that it has become a non-issue on the forums) * Command & Control (playing the campaign on Veteran, so cannot comment on that one) * equip and rearm * REAL TIME optional!!!!! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Come on. If it's so easy - and I'm not saying it is or isn't - then let us see your point system. If it's good enough, maybe they'll even include it. Flies and vinegar and honey and all that. But Michael, Steve has said it's not the point-calculation that is stopping it (although he certainly thinks it's no small thing) but the basic C&C mechanism. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritzthemoose Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by 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. thats a very good point here. the game was not only designed for a different customer group with regards to rt but also for people who play vs the ai and not vs humans. playing mainly or only vs the ai, im my personal opinion, means that u dont really look for a real challange or realistic behavior because u know that u cannot get it. its a simple fact that no computer in the world is able to create an ai even remotly close to the human brain. it does has its merrits tho. u dont have to set time aside for a tcip nor do u have to sit around and wait for turn. u can simply fire up the game whenever u like and play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: the second reason is that we really don't want to get into another point pissing match like we did in CMx1.Whoever disagreed with the point totals, tell them to shut their cake hole. With a more limited scope CMx2 needs a better implementation of QB's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I'm just angry that I can't play multiplayer without doing PBEM. It's cumbersome and time consuming. The Real Time multiplayer mode DOES NOT WORK. I keep asking around, everyone I talk to (about a half dozen people so far) seems to have the same problem, and yet there's almost nothing on the forum. If WEGO was multiplayer like the old games, I'd be fine. But if RT is here, it should work. I don't play these games to fight an AI. All the other bugs are annoying, but core functionality in a multiplayer game is important! Why bother making real time if it lags terribly? And it does for me EVERY SINGLE GAME. Everyone I play with lags out when they play other people. Is this rare? Or does no one play real time multiplayer? Is it something that's easy to fix on my end? Or is the netcode really that bad? I'm starting to think that the problem isn't going to get solved and I should just go do something else. I've posted a bunch about it and I don't want to bother the forum any more. If I had to do it over I wouldn't buy the game in its current form. I won't buy any future title, either, until I get a chance to read a lot of good reviews. This is frustrating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feltan Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Feltan: </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. 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. Michael, You do remember that Steel Panthers had a point based QB system & a point based dynamic campaign (where units actually appeared in all the scenarios). That was what, ten years ago? It was probably the main reason I played that game. I don't find the requests for something similar here that far off the mark of expectations. And, frankly, I am a bit perplexed by the pushback on such a seemingly modest request. Regards, Feltan </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgsan Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Zemke: Heck I just read Steve's post on performance/stability issues, and I just ordered a Intel Duel Core 6600 and new graphics card 8800 NVIDIA.....good thing I have not ordered the game.....Man, with all these issues and problems concerning CMSF, I am going to try and get a TCIP game of CMBB going or at least a PBEM. Zemke, hope your experience varies, but you may find that CMBB and CMAK don't run on your new rig either. At least that was my experience when I purchased a new computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor, GeForce 8600 GTS, running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. Also, I think Feltan makes a fair point above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by fritzthemoose: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 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. thats a very good point here. the game was not only designed for a different customer group with regards to rt but also for people who play vs the ai and not vs humans. playing mainly or only vs the ai, im my personal opinion, means that u dont really look for a real challange or realistic behavior because u know that u cannot get it. its a simple fact that no computer in the world is able to create an ai even remotly close to the human brain. it does has its merrits tho. u dont have to set time aside for a tcip nor do u have to sit around and wait for turn. u can simply fire up the game whenever u like and play. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Sirocco, Whoever disagreed with the point totals, tell them to shut their cake hole.Heh... that never worked before With a more limited scope CMx2 needs a better implementation of QB's.It will get better. Immediately there will be some fixes, but for CM:WW2 there will be some significant changes. It won't be like CMx1, but it will have more of the feel of it. thelmia All the other bugs are annoying, but core functionality in a multiplayer game is important! Why bother making real time if it lags terribly? And it does for me EVERY SINGLE GAME. Everyone I play with lags out when they play other people. Is this rare? Or does no one play real time multiplayer? Is it something that's easy to fix on my end? Or is the netcode really that bad?I don't know the answer because this is really the first I've heard about it. Testing didn't uncover any problems, but that means little since a couple dozen people playing doesn't give a fair representation of the possible variables out there. I'll see what I can dig up though. Feltan, My point, and I think the point of some of the other posters (although not sure given some of the animosity) is simply this: it is a reasonable expectation, in 2007, for a game such as this to provide some sort of "unit purchase" system for QB and campaigns. I have to disagree with you here in the sense that there is no one way to do this and that means there is room for a difference of opinion. Granted, I don't think we've found the right compromise between CMx1's system (which is dead and will not be copied) and what CM:WW2 should have in it. I'm fine with that since we never said we are perfect. Therefore, QBs in CM:WW2 will not be the same as they are in CM:SF. How will they differ? Too early to say. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Feltan: I am a little disappointed. I understand the bugs mentioned elsewhere, and I can be satisfied by simply knowing they are being worked. This issue, on the other hand, leaves me perplexed: both by its absence in the game, and by the responses to seemingly rational inquiries. Regards, Feltan Steve has said that the new C&C modeling absolutely prevents player force picks of any kind. Appears to be a design decision made years ago, so it's not addressable even if Steve thought it was worth addressing. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Feltan: It is an easy rhetorical tool to turn the request back on a customer. Oh, yeah, baby, I'm like RED HOT MOLTEN TNT that way - Path of Least Resistance, BABE! :mad: Sure, BFC can say "no," or "design it for us" or "go to hell." In all seriousness, they have done exactly that. They said no. So what else is there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I tried to play my copy of CMSF today. I couldn't get into it. The disappearing map features, etc., etc., just kept me from getting into it. So then I dusted off my copy of CMBB and fired up a traditional QB. 2000 pts, N region, September 1942, random features, weather and time. Took me about five minutes to pick my forces, then the computer and I had at each other. It was a blast. Just my $0.02 worth. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feltan Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: So what else is there? Other games I suppose. Regards, Feltan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Feltan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: So what else is there? Other games I suppose. Regards, Feltan </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Feltan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: So what else is there? Other games I suppose. Regards, Feltan </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Michael ..why do you have to be so precise and correct and ...why can't you just one time even ..just say bite me. That would really make my day. I'm not slamming you now , so don't get all rhetorical and stuff ..just pretend to be unwashed or something and say "eat my shorts". Would really make my day seem so ...so real and worth it sort of speak. Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by GunzAbeam: Michael ..why do you have to be so precise and correct and ...why can't you just one time even ..just say bite me. That would really make my day. I'm not slamming you now , so don't get all rhetorical and stuff ..just pretend to be unwashed or something and say "eat my shorts". Would really make my day seem so ...so real and worth it sort of speak. Regards, Gunz Pretend to be unwashed? You should see my bathroom. My houseguests dry their hands on their shirt tails because they're scared of the towels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 So, eat my towels then! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by MrSpkr: I tried to play my copy of CMSF today. I couldn't get into it. The disappearing map features, etc., etc., just kept me from getting into it. So then I dusted off my copy of CMBB and fired up a traditional QB. 2000 pts, N region, September 1942, random features, weather and time. Took me about five minutes to pick my forces, then the computer and I had at each other. It was a blast. Just my $0.02 worth. Steve Just did the same with AK. My favorite type of QB - me US infantry with some light AT, AI German armor force, attacking. Many smoking panzers and HTs resulted. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Not that I didn't like the system anyway, I'm just saying - make it easier for them and present a convincing business case. Or run away. Your call. Several have already done so. Eliminate points entirely, just allow open slots to fill. People that like play balance or historicals will pick that way, people that like to club seals or play with the Ubers will pick that way. -dale 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.