1.07 Demo Feedback

[Cpl Steiner]

I would just like to say that I was really pleased with the 1.07 demo. I have the full game but thought I'd download it anyway to see what it was like, as I was considering recommending it to a friend.

I played the training mission first and really noticed a big difference from the previous demo. The graphics looked a lot better and it ran completely smoothly.

Game-play was noticeably better compared to the original demo. In the original version, the Strykers would never go in a straight line across the desert to their assigned waypoints. Now their routes are as straight as an arrow.

Similarly, when they got within range of the enemy trenches in the old version, the Syrians were slaughtered very easily. This time, the firefight seemed to last a lot longer because the Syrians were harder to hit in their trenches. As soon as one was hit, the others would take cover and become pretty immune to enemy fire for a short time. There were no rounds burrowing through the earth to kill the occupants of the trenches like there used to be. The battle looked very realistic.

I then played the mission in which you have to clear a government complex of enemy forces, and found it a lot of fun too. It really showed off the new self-preservation instincts of the vehicles and passengers.

I have yet to try the armour mission but will give it a go later tonight.

Basically, if this new demo was plonked on a game reviewer's desk tomorrow, I can't see how they could score it less than 7 or 8 out of 10.

[EDIT] I've now played the armour scenario from the demo as well and had a blast. Some comments follow:

1. Very smooth frame-rate;

2. Strykers took evasive action against missiles and enemy vehicles, popping smoke and reversing at the first sign of trouble;

3. A missile that hit a Stryker only damaged it and injured several passengers and a crewman - which seems like a more realistic damage model;

4. Tanks engaged targets very effectively without micromanagement;

5. It was cool to see enemy missiles launch in the distance and seek their targets - bobbing along much slower than shells but clearly guided;

6. The change in lighting conditions from dark to the eerie light of dawn was very effective.

I realise that these things are not new to regular players but I wanted to imagine what would wow a new player who had just downloaded the demo.

I could go on but basically it was fun and exciting to play all the demo missions even though I have the full game. I am sure someone downloading the 1.07 demo will think CM:SF is a cool game and will be very tempted to buy the full version, assuming word gets out that the new demo is much better than the first one.

I've had no hesitation in recommending the demo to my friend. I hope others get to hear about it.

[ February 23, 2008, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Spooner]

@Cpl. Steiner (EDIT: I mean Adam1, not Steiner): If all the press was held off until 1.07, I'm sure they wouldn't have sold as many copies (even bad press means people are aware of the product and those interested in niche products like this are more willing to overlook imperfections) and so they wouldn't have had the money to actually "fix" the game up!

--

I'm currently trying to proselytise heavily among my friends who play ArmA (you don't play that game unless you prize realism and tactics over a highly polished product, so they should be prime candidates for SF ;P ). Hopefully, 1.07 demo will make all the difference, since I didn't feel that the 1.02 demo was that good really, as much because of the poor choice of example scenario as the more obvious flaws in the system (personally, I took a leap of faith myself to buy the game, based mostly on the number of comments on this forum that stated that 1.06 was finally "playable").

[ February 24, 2008, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Spooner ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Spooner,

Glad to have you on-board.

By the way, it was Adam1 who said about holding off the press, not me.

There are lots of people who "should" like the game - ex or current forces in most western countries for instance - and yet they still don't buy it. For instance I work with two ex-Territorial-Army guys in my office and have mentioned the game to them but they have shown little interest. One said he thought it was an "officers game". I had to smile at that one!

The market is obviously pretty niche. You have to like strategy and tactics, modern military, and desert warfare. All of the above will put off a fair number of people.

The question now though is, how does BFC get the word out that the game has been "fixed up".

[Spooner]

Sorry Steiner, I get easily confused!

I was amused by the idea that a tactical game liek this was only for officers. I have never been, nor would ever want to be in the army at any rank, but that doesn't stop me being interested in tactical military simulations. Oh well, I suppose this must be why chess is only played by kings then?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I certainly agree with the sentiment that had CMSF been released in its 107 version is would have made every bit as much of a splash in all the right ways that the three CMX1 games did.

No point replay the reasons why it was released too early but all at Battlefront will have been aware of it and only released it so early for reasons they could not avoid.

Happily… all is now well and wargame wise the future is very bright. Normandy next then off the Eastern Front and with added features such as CoOp/live team play to come.

Wargaming couldn’t get any better… .

All the best,

Kip.

[Webwing]

Very interesting review of the demo by Cpl Steiner!

I'm confident that by the time BF releases the Marines Module the press will have new and positive reviews of the game.

I must disagree with kipanderson though.

"Wargaming couldn’t get any better…"???

Yes it can! Marines, British, Normandy!!!!

The topic of BF releasing what some consider an unfinished game has been raised many times.

Everyone has an opinion about it. But it usually involves ideal situations and disregards a lot of the technical, marketing, legal, operational, financial issues that most of us are not even aware of and have no access to.

I use to say I'm very good at solving other peoples problems. And it comes very naturally to me, I have to say. You tell me your problems, I'll give you the solution.

My problems? Well, well, that's another story. They seem so much more complex...

-

[Xavier]

Ok, I finally tried this game with the 1.07 Demo...

I run it on vista / 2 Gb Ram / ATI Radeon 2600 / Intel Core 2 duo 1,5 GHz

After 1 minute of playing = game crash!

(I have no problem with the Tow demo...)

WTF!

[gibsonm]

Well I have no idea until you detail the crash (apart from “WTF”).

WEGO vs RT

Error messages if any, etc.

[the Fighting Seabee]

That sucks, I've had this game since it came out and had no crashes at all. Just lucky I guess.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Xavier:

Ok, I finally tried this game with the 1.07 Demo...

I run it on vista / 2 Gb Ram / ATI Radeon 2600 / Intel Core 2 duo 1,5 GHz

After 1 minute of playing = game crash!

(I have no problem with the Tow demo...)

WTF!

From what I've heard, Vista is the problem, not CM:SF.

[buckup]

Just got the demo and am playing through.

So far I have two main questions.

1. This may seem silly, but is there any way to speed up the passage time in RT mode?

2. I seem to remember somewhere that buildings suffer noticable damage, but in the demo structures seem to take no damage at all. Am I missing something?

[Other Means]

Originally posted by buckup:

Just got the demo and am playing through.

So far I have two main questions.

1. This may seem silly, but is there any way to speed up the passage time in RT mode?

2. I seem to remember somewhere that buildings suffer noticable damage, but in the demo structures seem to take no damage at all. Am I missing something?

1) No way to speed up time. I think it's on Steve's To Do list, along with a thousand and one other things including "take a day off already"

2) "If hitting it with a hammer doesn't help, use a bigger hammer". I've never seen bullets take down a structure, but larger HE has no trouble.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by buckup:

Just got the demo and am playing through.

Nice one. I'm please to see new players are getting to hear about the latest version of the demo.

Originally posted by buckup:

I seem to remember somewhere that buildings suffer noticable damage, but in the demo structures seem to take no damage at all. Am I missing something?

They definitely take damage. Try calling in a "general" fire mission on some buildings with your artillery in the "Going to Town" scenario and I'm sure you will see some nicely demolished structures!

[M1A1TC]

I would love to see the gradual destruction of a building model, instead of just a collapse into rubble

[Childress]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I would love to see the gradual destruction of a building model, instead of just a collapse into rubble

Or on map mortar teams? Or visibly routing troops? Surrenders? Hull down feedback? Casualty tallies? I realize that borg spotting is history and that there are a lot of cool new algorithms humming under the hood but CMSF still seems so, uh, unfurnished. Maybe the missing stuff will show up eventually.

[gibsonm]

What do you mean “hull down feedback”?

If you upgrade to 1.07 and use the Targeting command it tells you if the firer is hull down to the position being targeted or not.

Or do you want some sort of global instant feedback as to whether the vehicle is hull down to every possible location at every range within 6,400 mils?

If so, be prepared for a performance hit.

[Childress]

Well, IIRC, CMBB and CMAK had seek Hull Down commands. Additionally, the terrain in CMSF lends itself less easily to visible HD positions. Of course, this may be in the nature of desert which can be very subtle in elevation variations. But ur right on the targeting info- it's in the game.

Maybe I'm spoiled by the detailing in the successive versions of CM1, nevertheless, I still maintain that the game needs more 'stuff'- for chrome and for realism. The streets are empty of of abandoned vehicles. And plane shadows and sound effects would add some atmosphere. Also, when was there ever a conflict between and a 1st world power and a Middle Eastern country that didn't feature a lot of surrendering?

[ February 25, 2008, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[permanent666]

Originally posted by Childress:

And plane shadows and sound effects would add some atmosphere.

plane and helicopter sounds would be great. imagine the rising rotor sounds when the apaches approach

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Childress:

Maybe I'm spoiled by the detailing in the successive versions of CM1, nevertheless, I still maintain that the game needs more 'stuff'- for chrome and for realism. The streets are empty of of abandoned vehicles. And plane shadows and sound effects would add some atmosphere. Also, when was there ever a conflict between and a 1st world power and a Middle Eastern country that didn't feature a lot of surrendering?

Not to be labelled a BFC fan boy I have to agree that the game is still lacking in a lot of areas but I think we all have to accept that BFC probably bit off more than they could chew with CM:SF. It is obvious to me that lots of things were intended to be in the game but they ran out of time.

Maybe their estimates were off; maybe they ran into unforeseen problems. Whatever the reason, we are where we are, so we may as well accept it. I am hoping that over the coming years BFC will gradually add in all the chrome and polish that is currently missing.

As you rightly point out, on map prisoners would be a very welcome addition, as would roaring jet noises overhead and all the rest you mentioned.

[YankeeDog]

Sounds like that would be fun, but it's important to keep in mind what would be realistic for modern combat. This ain't Normandy in 1944 anymore.

Nowadays, planes mostly stay up above 10,000 feet to stay out of the range of MANPADS, and often much higher. A GPS or laser-guided weapon like a SDB is just as accurate from 30,000 feet as it is from 5,000.

Helicopters don't usually attack from such altitude, but usually stay a couple of clicks away from the target area for the same reason. For the most part, modern targeting and guidance systems allow them to do this without a significant loss of accuracy. When they do attack low and close, they try to pop up from terrain cover, to mask their sound and visual signature until the last possible moment.

There are some exceptions where you would clearly hear/see the aircraft; for example, a Kiowa attacking with unguided rockets. It wouldn't swoop right overhead (no passing shadow, sorry), but if the battlefield alarum wasn't too loud, you'd probably hear the rotor a bit. And you can definitely hear a supersonic jet passing overhead, even if it's at 10,000 ft. It's more of a generalized roar than a screeching pass, though. And you actually hear it *after* the plane passes overhead, not before (when the plane is supersonic or near-supersonic, anyway, which is most of the time).

At any rate, dramatic low-level swoops by strafing Apaches (or F-16s, or whatever) are a Hollywood thing.

But tastefully done, I do think some aircraft sounds would add to the game. Not airshow-like low level swoops but I'd love to hear the boom and receding dull roar of a jet climbing out after a Hellfire strike or strafing "splash" . . . that would fun *and* realistic.

Cheers,

YD

[gibsonm]

You might see the shadow of an A-10 as you crawl away from your burning BMP though (if he/she used their cannon).

[MikeyD]

Oh please.

Have you tried playing the game instead of just comparing it to the fantasy game in your head? Some people seem to have not even installed it, they're just comparing the features list in the ReadMe doc to their wish list. Hmmm... no matix-style direct base-of-brainstem interface yet? What a disappointment.

[Lurker765]

Um...yes, I have tried playing it. And I didn't notice any on map mortar teams, visibly routing troops, surrenders, casualty tallies, artillery smoke, aircraft noises, etc. Like that other game did years ago.

Like a poster in this thread said, it still seems unfinished.

I want to play this game head to head against a human opponent and can't. WEGO TCP/IP doesn't exist. RT TCP/IP exists, but seems unstable for medium sized battles. And WEGO PBEM still has crashes (that are now supposed to be fixed in v1.08).

Plus, the community support for multiplayer fell apart once it took months for the game to become somewhat stable. Can you point me to a website that supports multiplayer matchups?

I'll try it again when I can play a human without frustration occurring due to crashes/bugs every game.

[Childress]

Perhaps the realistically spare, monotonous terrain accentuates the 'unfinished' feeling. Of course, including all the AWOL stuff will pose an added graphics load. And Battlefront is, basically, a 2 man development team. They've come a long way since 1.0. Still....

Good points on aircraft affects, YankeeDog.