1.07 Demo Feedback

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by 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.

Visibly routing troops have a "!" sign above their head before they disappear from the map. It's a bit harder to keep track of though.

[Lethaface]

There would be one 'swooping' sound out there, the A10 gaus canon

There are plenty of videos at youtube were you see troops in the frontline with A10 giving CAS. Love to see that sound built in

[Lurker765]

Yes, but if you happen to not be looking at them when they disappear/rout. I guess that adds to the list-- labels showing unit status that you can see from the god view (3 and above). I also forgot step damage indications for buildings when replying to MikeyD. All things present in that other game years ago that make play fun.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

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.

That was true for CMx1 as well. Many of the things that went into CMBB were originally intended for CMBO, for example.

Childress,

Maybe I'm spoiled by the detailing in the successive versions of CM1,

Partly, but also partly it's comparing the dreamy memories of a "perfect" game that was far from perfect. For example:

The streets are empty of of abandoned vehicles.

CMx1 streets were not only empty of abandoned vehicles, but they were limited to 2 stories, could only be positioned one direction, had no concept of doors and windows, there was absolutely no variation in shape, roofs weren't usable, etc. etc. So when you say you want more "chrome", you appear to be overlooking the hundreds of improvements that are in CMx1 and instead focusing on perceived shortcomings.

Guys... think about it. If you are expecting that ANY development team can include every single last detail in a real environment and in a real combat situation you've really got to stop sniffing glue (read the label, it does say this is a bad idea!). Therefore, expecting everything to be present is akin to expecting we can have world peace, low taxes and universal services, kids who are respectful of their elders, teens who don't drive while text messaging, and a number of other things. In other words, unbound expectations will result in proportional levels of disappointment.

Lurker765,

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.

Here's an interesting exercise for you to do. Take CMAK and CM:SF. Write down all the things that CMAK has and then look at CM:SF and write down all the things it has. Tally them up and then see which one, on balance, has more stuff in it. I already know the answer, and a hint is that it isn't CMAK. So you are perfectly welcome to harp about what CM:SF doesn't have as I am to harp about people who can't see a forest through the trees.

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.

Not aware of it being unstable. Do tell.

And WEGO PBEM still has crashes (that are now supposed to be fixed in v1.08).

Yes, an unfortunately artifact of the new spotting system introduced in v1.06. Doesn't happen all the time, but when it does happen there is no work around until we release a new patch (should be very soon).

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?

Not my department.

Steve

[Childress]

CMx1 streets were not only empty of abandoned vehicles, but they were limited to 2 stories, could only be positioned one direction, had no concept of doors and windows, there was absolutely no variation in shape, roofs weren't usable, etc. etc. So when you say you want more "chrome", you appear to be overlooking the hundreds of improvements that are in CMx1 and instead focusing on perceived shortcomings.

Steve

[Childress]

CMx1 streets were not only empty of abandoned vehicles, but they were limited to 2 stories, could only be positioned one direction, had no concept of doors and windows, there was absolutely no variation in shape, roofs weren't usable, etc. etc. So when you say you want more "chrome", you appear to be overlooking the hundreds of improvements that are in CMx1 and instead focusing on perceived shortcomings.

Steve

We know that, Steve. Their absence in CMSF is simply more noticeable (for me) because much of the action seems more urban in nature than before. And we're accustomed to the usual video feeds from TV and Youtube. Just want the game to be perfect.

[Cpl Steiner]

Er, you do realise that you can put abandoned vehicles in the streets if you really want to? There is nothing to stop people putting dozens of burning and immobilized vehicles on every street corner if they so desire.

At the moment the editor allows a vehicle to be "OK", "Immobilised", "Destroyed" or "Burning". However, some vehicles come with crew already inside, so it would be nice if we could get the crew to bail out in the editor. It would also be nice if once abandoned, the vehicle doors weren't always swinging wide open. If they could be closed it would make parked vehicles look a lot better. A greater variety of civilian vehicles would also be nice for scenery. Just one more vehicle that could have a variety of colours would be fine.

Oh and one more thing. It would also be nice if abandoned vehicles could be given a neutral status rather than belonging to "Blue" or "Red". This would also help improve street scenes.

[Lurker765]

Steve,

In answer to your request to make a list of the stuff CMSF does vs CMx1. I could do that and see which works. I could also compare CMSF to Half Life and I bet I know which one comes out on the short end as well. A hint, CMSF isn't on the cutting edge and doesn't have a staff of dozens of talented programmers to realize fancy graphics and physics modelling. But, to carry this point in the correct direction -- CMx1 did things that made the game much, much more fun for me to play for years and years. CMSF might do this one day, but it is certainly not close to that now in my opinion.

In any case, I just stumbled across someone else's list on this very subject that I quite agree with:

--------------------------------------------

What I liked most about CM1 that made it different from the competition, then and now:

1) The non 2-D, hex format, although you could play it that way, if you liked.

2) attention to historical detail

3) PBEM and TCP option

4) broad scope and good scale

5) good infantry and morale model (I know some people will blow a gasket, but not many games out there do it better, especially with improvements in CMBB and CMAK)

6) Scenario builder

7) Quick Battles and random battle generator

8) the hybrid RT/Turn-based model (known as WEGO)

9) excellent TacAI in comparison to other games

10) Condition of game on release

11) Unit encyclopedia

12) turn replay

Now we can compare that to CMSF:

1) Yes, can do

2) Yes

3) PBEM still somewhat buggy and no TCP after 6 months

4) pretty limited terrain and equipment

5) In some ways better, but in some ways worse. Can't tell if its bugs or design

6) Much more powerful editor, but also much more complex. Missing some key features to really get the community going.

7) Not really...some kind of kludged together thing that required community support to come close to being playable

8) Once again a pretty kludged together version

9) TacAI is coming along, but still pretty lacking in comparison to CM1. There isn't even a way to really ambush something in CMSF.

10) Not even close

11) Not even close again

12) No, once again, not even close

Now what has CMSF got that CM1 doesn't:

1) 1:1 representation of soldiers in squad, some good things about the theory, but poorly implemented. Hopefully 1.06 or 1.07 will get it there.

2) No more borg spotting, same as above, great theory, but hard to tell what the benefits are

3) better theoretical C2 system, but pretty much neutered as implemented. Does have a lot of potential.

4) Better graphics

5) Incredibly powerful Scenario editor, but no strat AI, so SP games are dependent on timing set up for AI strat plan. If timing is off or if the player does something unexpected, the scenario becomes a disaster

6) Ability for squads to acquire ammo and other support equipment. But be careful, once acquired, you can't drop.

7) More detailed buildings, but seems to cause more problems than solve

8) More detailed unit damage, including wounded

9) RT mode

10) Better chaining of commands, although it took hue and cry from players to get it implemented in patches

11) night vision and overall detailed sighting equipment detail

12) ATGM and great armor models (I think)

13) a pretty good theoretical MOUT model (doesn't really work consistently)

14) Dynamic lighting (after last patch)

I am sure there are others. What can someone draw from this? In theory CMSF should blow CM1 away. Two main reasons it doesn't: 1) Poorly implemented features, both bugs and design and 2) lack of longevity...crappy QB, limited scope, limited number of scenarios, complex scenaio builder. Notice I didn't mention modern. I actually like the modern aspect of it. I don't like the poor implementation and paying $60 US to be on the beta team.

--------------------------------------------

Well...since you don't believe me about the TCP/IP still having some problems maybe you can check the links:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000593#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003885#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000582#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003643#000001

This last link you replied to claiming that since it works for the majority of people it isn't the CMSF code. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Who knows? There isn't a way for the customers to find out since we don't have access to the code and can't debug it or attach to one of the running processes or check a core dump. I'd suspect one of the root problems is that the machine is overloaded on the CPU and can't keep up with in game stuff as well as TCP/IP requirements and along the way artifacts such as inability to order units about, etc start happening. But I can't dig into this problem, only you can. And if you choose not to that leaves me stuck with an unstable product whether you think it is your fault or not.

Speaking of which, who is doing the quality assurance? The latest WEGO PBEM problem was discovered within a day of the code being released. The low wall bug was discovered within a day of the code release. I understand you are a small shop, but if I released code like this I would be crucified by my clients and my company. Bugs are a certainty in software, but finding them before release in obvious cases should not be this hard.

And, really, CMSF multiplayer is not your department? Who's department is it to get players together to play your game? How many other companies offer at least a modicum of support to get people to enjoy their product and perhaps buy more modules at a later date? And you believe it isn't your department?

Honestly, most of these things wouldn't bother me if you had just been more honest with us from the beginning about what CMSF was trying to accomplish and what the priorities would be and what the state of the game was upon the early release. If I had been told that WEGO PBEM would not be working for the first eight months after release I would have happily waited for a module that did support it and avoided all this grief and frustration trying to play this game against another person.

You had an awful lot of goodwill built up from me for the great work you did in CMx1 and supporting it. It is a shame watching it all go down in a slow bitter drain over time as the spin on this game continues. If I were to bet I would think that you will get this engine working reasonably well soon, but it has been a tough, tough ride for me since the release in July. If someone had asked me back then what it would take to get me to give up on BFC I would have laughed at them. Now, it actually is beginning to seem possible and that is a sad feeling for me.

[Battlefront.com]

Childress,

We know that, Steve. Their absence in CMSF is simply more noticeable (for me) because much of the action seems more urban in nature than before. And we're accustomed to the usual video feeds from TV and Youtube. Just want the game to be perfect.

So do we, the difference is we known fully well that it can't be. Therefore we find it rather sad that some people focus on the small stuff that isn't there instead of focusing on the huge amount of stuff that is there. Your comment about cars in the street is a perfect example of that (which, ironically, can be done as Cpl Steiner points out. It just chews up FPS if done too much).

There is so much to urban combat in real life and we think we have probably the best modeling of that type of combat in any tactical game that exists today. That includes military sims. Being the best out there by such a wide margin should count for something, but apparently if there aren't airplane shadows that's just not good enough. Oh well

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

In answer to your request to make a list of the stuff CMSF does vs CMx1. I could do that and see which works. I could also compare CMSF to Half Life and I bet I know which one comes out on the short end as well.

For a simulation of modern tactical combat, CM:SF runs circles around Half Life. Which is why I didn't ask you to compare CM:SF to Half Life... we win hands down. Now, as a FPS game CM:SF sucks because a) it isn't a FPS game and we don't have budgets with 8 figures in front of the decimal point. Hell, they might be up to 9 figures by now.

But, to carry this point in the correct direction -- CMx1 did things that made the game much, much more fun for me to play for years and years. CMSF might do this one day, but it is certainly not close to that now in my opinion.

And you are entitled to look at the glass as half full. It's your God given right to find the game crap because you don't have an airplane shadow or on map mortars, despite a simulation of both air and artillery that is 10 times more detailed than CMx1. In other words, you can choose to focus on what isn't there and lose sight of what is there if you want to.

In any case, I just stumbled across someone else's list on this very subject that I quite agree with:

I don't know who wrote that, but whatever he was smoking must be available to you too if you agree. I mean cripes, look at #11... CMx1 didn't have a "Unit Encyclopedia". In fact, there is more information about the units in CM:SF's manual than all of CMx1's manuals combined. And #12... no turn replay in CM:SF? What?

Anyway, at this this person made a list of some of the things CMx2 has that CMx1 doesn't. This is far better than most people do, though there are still inaccuracies ("dynamic lighting" has been in since 2004. We only recently added nighttime flash related lighting). This list was also written around the time of v1.05 I think. Don't agree with some of the criticisms either, such as C2 being "neutered" (no clue what that even means). I also think the list is missing a huge amount of other things CMx1 doesn't have:

1. Detailed simulation of artillery and air

2. Vehicles that have individually damageable systems

3. Detailed physics for everything (CMx1 didn't have a physics model at all)

4. 1:1 LOF and now pretty close to 1:1 LOS

5. Massive options for scenario victory conditions instead of just capturing flags flags

6. Far more detailed terrain and tons more terrain combinations

7. Separation of Morale and Suppression

8. Soldiers have individual equipment, weight, and the stuff that goes along with that

9. Prebattle briefings

10. Deformable terrain

That's just a quick list I came up with off the top of my head. The list could be much longer (Blue on Red, Red on Red, mix of each, etc.), and the sub components of some of these things is much longer (like the hidden victory conditions, asymmetrical victory conditions, etc.) without too much effort.

As for the assessment, it is unfortunate that it's taken so long to get the bugs worked out. I'm not going to argue there. But longevity and what not... whatever. We gave you guys too much with CMx1 and we have been very honest that we're never going to do that ever again since I doubt more than a few of you would pay us for what it actually costs to make it that way. In short, CMx1 was never designed to be played 7 years on. That was a mistake, not a design goal.

Well...since you don't believe me about the TCP/IP still having some problems maybe you can check the links:

I did and saw nothing about stability problems like you claimed. In fact, I saw the opposite. Pleased with performance, pleased with the overall experience (though there are some issues we're looking into).

This last link you replied to claiming that since it works for the majority of people it isn't the CMSF code. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Who knows?

Well, there is ONE PERSON saying he is having some problems. So yeah, who knows? Maybe all the other people that are saying it's working great are really the minority? BTW, check out Half Life or any other tech support Forum for online games and you'll see more than one post about networking problems.

Speaking of which, who is doing the quality assurance? The latest WEGO PBEM problem was discovered within a day of the code being released. The low wall bug was discovered within a day of the code release. I understand you are a small shop, but if I released code like this I would be crucified by my clients and my company.

How complex is your product? How long are you given for release cycles? Do you do a code freeze for 2 weeks without risking putting in any more fixes or enhancements that people want to see? The v1.07 patch came out in 2 weeks and has a fix/tweak list the length of my arm, so I suppose we could have waited another 2 weeks to make absolutely sure everything worked 100% perfectly, then restart the testing clock each time another tweak was made. Or we could do what we did and that is put out the patch out as soon as we felt that more good would be done by having it out than not.

BTW, the low bug wall has been explained a million times. We knew it was there before releasing the patch but it was too late to stop the process. Considering it was introduced the day before we sent the patch off to be released I don't think the testers should be blamed.

And, really, CMSF multiplayer is not your department? Who's department is it to get players together to play your game? How many other companies offer at least a modicum of support to get people to enjoy their product and perhaps buy more modules at a later date? And you believe it isn't your department?

My job is to get the things that you guys are complaining about fixed. By doing that supposedly it will make you happy enough to play the game without us having to do anything more. So I guess we can be faulted for putting the horse before the cart.

Honestly, most of these things wouldn't bother me if you had just been more honest with us from the beginning about what CMSF was trying to accomplish and what the priorities would be and what the state of the game was upon the early release.

We were EXTREMELY honest and upfront with our customers about what CM:SF would and wouldn't be. But some people either didn't see the message or chose to ignore it. That's not our problem. Most game companies don't give their customers the time of day, so I'm comfortable with our level of interaction.

As for the initial state of the game... what do you expect us to do? Find me a company in the world that says "hey, we're releasing this product and it's got enough bugs in it that you'll likely be bitching about it for 6 months" and I'll print out this post and eat it. Besides that we honestly didn't think we would have to spend all this time working on improving it to the degree we have. So in reality we're about as surprised as you and therefore couldn't tell you ahead of time even if it was normal for a company to poison its own release.

If I had been told that WEGO PBEM would not be working for the first eight months after release I would have happily waited for a module that did support it and avoided all this grief and frustration trying to play this game against another person.

You got me there. We knew ahead of time that PBEM would have bugs in it for the first 7 months, but we thought it would be really funny if we didn't tell anybody that. Sorry, our bad.

You had an awful lot of goodwill built up from me for the great work you did in CMx1 and supporting it. It is a shame watching it all go down in a slow bitter drain over time as the spin on this game continues.

Apparently 7 years of good will and hard work yields about 2 hours of slack from our "loyal customers". So I agree with you, it's a shame to watch people who have enjoyed a $45 purchase for 7 years get all bent out of shape about a couple of months of issues that, depending on your perspective, range from serious to not very important.

If I were to bet I would think that you will get this engine working reasonably well soon, but it has been a tough, tough ride for me since the release in July. If someone had asked me back then what it would take to get me to give up on BFC I would have laughed at them. Now, it actually is beginning to seem possible and that is a sad feeling for me.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

Steve

[We Build We Fight]

We gave you guys too much with CMx1 and we have been very honest that we're never going to do that ever again since I doubt more than a few of you would pay us for what it actually costs to make it that way. In short, CMx1 was never designed to be played 7 years on. That was a mistake, not a design goal.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

Steve [/QB]

[teeps]

I like CMSF. I think Steve is well within his rights to vent his feelings as much as anyone else is. When there's such an open communication I choose to read Steve as responding as a person rather than a corporate lackey, and I much prefer it that way. Any other developer would have stopped responding by now, except for a perhaps a bland acknowledgement of posts every six months.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by We Build We Fight:

I don't see how BFC can afford to have you around.

Steve is THE Developer

Charles is THE Coder

So are you suggesting Steve fire himself ?

[Meach]

Some people are never satisfied. The game is good as it stands with 1.07 and it's gonna get better.

Wind in your cranks, guys.

[PanzerMike]

Originally posted by Meach:

Some people are never satisfied. The game is good as it stands with 1.07 and it's gonna get better.

Wind in your cranks, guys.

I am with you Meach. I think CMSF is pretty darn good since 1.07 and the guys at BFC still keep improving upon it. BFC have also listened to their customers and the result is a much better game.

The engine is great. I am so looking forward to seeing this engine at work in Normandy 1944. Modern combat just isn't really my thing, you know. But I recognize a good engine when I see one. No more sour grapes now please!

[Steiner14]

@We Build We Fight,

to me it seems, you don't acknowledge the different aspects of the involved roles.

The interests of the people running this company are (beside others) to make money and to keep in business.

The interests of you as customer are, to get the most for your money.

Do you see potential conflicts?

Fine, then you will understand what Steve said.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I also think the list is missing a huge amount of other things CMx1 doesn't have:

1. Detailed simulation of artillery and air

Except, Steve, that the AI can't use artillery or air AT ALL other than for a scripted pre-battle barrage. This was not the case for CMx1.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

2. Vehicles that have individually damageable systems

3. Detailed physics for everything (CMx1 didn't have a physics model at all)

4. 1:1 LOF and now pretty close to 1:1 LOS

Agree.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

5. Massive options for scenario victory conditions instead of just capturing flags flags

But no "Exit Map Edge" victory condition like in CMx1.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

6. Far more detailed terrain and tons more terrain combinations

7. Separation of Morale and Suppression

8. Soldiers have individual equipment, weight, and the stuff that goes along with that

True.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

9. Prebattle briefings

CMx1 did have detailed prebattle briefings. It just didn't allow images to be inserted into them.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

10. Deformable terrain

But once deformed it can't reset for the replay in WEGO mode.

[Lurker765]

Sigh...I've been trying not to post, but I couldn't let the "oh Please" comment earlier in this thread go by and now I am in the middle of this and can't stop myself.

Anyway, I would agree that CMSF's artillery has the potential to be better than CMx1,but it isn't right now. The AI can't use it against you in the middle of a battle so if you play blue vs blue or blue (AI) vs Red it is far worse than CMx1. In addition, there are no on map mortar teams and no artillery smoke in the game in CMSF and for some reason you can't call in arty in a non-LOS spot in CMSF either.

I don't understand how you missed the Unit Encyclopedia in CMx1. You can click on a unit and see the stats for it. Can you do that in CMSF? No. What are the penetration/armor values for a unit -- or what special equipment is it carrying? I believe that range values for ATGMs are finally in the game, but they weren't until just recently. The stuff in the manual is nice, but it isn't much fun trying to toggle back into the manual while the game is running and printing out the PDF sucks due to the piracy protection system.

CMSF has "Far more detailed terrain and tons more terrain combinations"? Really? It has water? Snow? Rain? Deep Mud? Terrain impassable to vehicles but not soldiers? I agree that you can place the number of trees in a tile, but that isn't as good as having a bridge or a river in my opinion. From what I can tell many people think the terrain in CMSF is not as good as CMx1, but I could be wrong.

"Soldiers have individual equipment, weight, and the stuff that goes along with that" -- does that stuff include carrying more ammo than they could physically move with? Or sending soldiers back for ammo pick ups while leaving the rest of the squad in position? Or sharing ammo with another squad? Or dropping ammo? I agree that in theory this sounds great, but as it is currently implemented it doesn't seem like THAT great of an improvement over CMx1 and the weapons held within a given squad in that system. Once the CMSF system gets fully realized it will be much better, but as it sits today it doesn't really help me enjoy the game much more.

The CMSF separation of Morale and Suppression is true. But I actually liked it when soldiers surrendered in CMx1. I actually think the morale/suppression system in CMx1 worked better, but perhaps that is just me. I see CMSF and think the morale/suppression system still needs work.

I don't understand the knock on CMx1 pre-battle briefings? CMx1 did have pre-battle briefings.

CMSF does have deformable terrain, but it doesn't have foxholes. And the WEGO replays with the terrain take the immersion factor out of the game for me. The graphic display of deformation isn't as important to me as having fortifications that I could place where I wanted to in the setup.

I don't think you were EXTREMELY honest about CMSF. I think you were somewhat honest, but given the WEGO TCP/IP on the box, the lack of quick battle support, etc I don't think you can claim total honesty.

And while it doesn't really matter, since you asked. I have done software for multiple companies over the last few decades. Some have six month long development cycles, my last one had weekly builds with releases into the wild every Tuesday (internet website). I understand short development cycles and the pressure it creates. My software has included everything from computer games through GPS satellites (not brain surgery, but rocket science) with a lot of stuff in between working in companies from 5 to 3000 people.

I still do not understand how you could discover a bug that would detrimentally impact almost every game played and still release it. That is the point of having a small company where you ship when it's ready -- you can stop the process at any time.

I understand your aggravation with us customers bitching, but your comments about us giving you two hours slack isn't true. I personally purchased five copies of your games, not one $45, did not get mad after two hours (still not truly mad yet), and the issues present in CMSF haven't been around for only a couple months (7 so far and still have CTD bugs for multiplayer).

I understand you think you gave us too much with CMx1. I agree with you. But that is part of the honesty. If you thought you gave us too much then why include a non-working QB system in CMSF rather than saying it would be fully implemented in a later module that I could buy. Instead it is tease that is guaranteed to annoy people who bought the game thinking they could do quick battles against another person and not have the units start the game in the same setup zone. Or have the computer AI actually move and try to accomplish a victory condition in a quick battle?

I don't see how we can both read the same links and come to opposite conclusions. The first one I provided still has not received an answer to his problem, the second link has another poster agree with the original and also talking about additional problems, the third link has another poster agreeing with the original (and no answers), and the final one is the one I talked about in my earlier post. How is this the "opposite" of what I claimed?

I think this is out of my system for a while again. It is just tough to watch someone heckle another poster when that original poster actually listed legitimate gripes. The spin on this is still tough to watch. I would be a happy camper if v1.08 worked and I could play another human in an enjoyable CMSF game. I don't want to complain about these things. My post count is low since I never complained about CMx1 despite being in on the ground floor and living through every one of it's patches.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[We Build We Fight]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by We Build We Fight:

I don't see how BFC can afford to have you around.

Steve is THE Developer

Charles is THE Coder

So are you suggesting Steve fire himself ? </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Adam1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

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

That is incorrect. Your original post first made the point, which I was responding to. You edited your post. Weird. </font>

[permanent666]

i don't know why there are so much complaints about this game. i was fascinated from the first time i played cmsf (v1.2). there was no compareable game out there - ok i have to admit that i didn't play any of the CMx1 games but i am a big fan of close combat.

the gameplay improved so much during the last 6 month and it is good to see, that battlefront will provide us with more fixes and features

cmsf is a game and not a representation of the reality. there are some limitations but it is playable and there are a lot of cool features and a tacAI which deserves it's name. compare it to games like coh and you will notice the difference.

my advice: if you want a 100% representation of the reality join the army and go to iraq.

i'm sure the majority of the players enjoy this game. at the weekend i wanted to buy another copy of cmsf in a big electronic store in vienna(aut) because i gave mine to a friend who is not in town at the moment and it was sold out.

for a long time cmsf was one of the 20 most sold games there

i have to say thank you to battlefront for this amazing game and i'm looking forward to the upcoming patches and modules

[Lurker765]

permanent666,

I think this is probably the core of the problem. You haven't played CMx1 and came in with no expectations. I think v1.07 is mostly a good and fun game.

The problem is the old guard who enjoyed CMx1 and expected CMSF to retain all the fun things of CMx1 and build on them to create an even more fun and modern game. Waiting years for a release that doesn't support many of the features that existed in the older game was inevitably a let down, and combined with the initial slew of bugs caused much frustration. I would have had my expectations at a different level if I had known that quick battles wouldn't be supported in this release rather than having the promise of them and the expectation of the prior quick battles in CMx1.

I don't want a representation of reality since that isn't possible. I would like a game that has the tactical possibilities of the prior incarnation (putting fortifications where I want them, etc). I'm also pretty sure if I join the army and go to Iraq they won't let me command multiple tanks and aircraft so it won't be quite the same.

I also want to say thank you to battlefront for all their hard work. I, too, am looking forward to the upcoming patches and modules. They are my best hope at making a game that will replace CMx1 on my harddrive and I wish them the best at doing so.

[Battlefront.com]

We Build We Fight,

What in the world do you mean by this?! You gave us too much?!?! Did you lose money giving us so much?

Lose? No. But made it worth our while? No, it wasn't worth our while. For example, we could have sold CMBB with 1 year's worth of development instead of 2 and I don't think we would have seen any difference in sales. So put it into perspective... if you are going for a job interview and they offer you to forms of compensation, one $15,000 and the other $30,000, for the same amount of work... which would you pick? Now, if we got super wildly rich off of CMx1, as some uninformed people think we did, then that's one thing. But we didn't. Hence our change in strategy.

You also state at times that CMx2 is so much more than CMx1. You gave us too much the first time and now your're giving us more? You're insane!

Nope, perfectly sane. As we said we gave people more DEPTH in the game engine with CMx2 than CMx1 had, but we gave less BREADTH. The difference is that we can reuse the "depth" component for future games, the "breadth" is always good only for that one product.

BFC breaks ground with CMx1, delivers a great product that is enjoyed by thousands to this day, 7 years later. Huge tournaments are still being planned, built and executed but this is all a mistake?

No, the mistake is that all of that would have happened if we hadn't included every last variant of every last tank, infantry, gun, etc. that was ever made. It would have been the same if we hadn't included the Axis Minor nations in CMBB. It would have happened if we hadn't included all the hundreds of improvements we made after the initial release of CMBO. Since you guys aren't willing to pay us what our time is worth, you are going to have to accept that we are within our rights to scale our time back.

I don't see how BFC can afford to have you around.

Because without me there would be nobody on staff to design the games?

Perhaps. It's more important to know your limitations than your strengths. I'm not looking for the company to lie or put up a false front, just show some respect.

Respect is something that isn't deserved, it is earned. When a customer doesn't deserve it the customer doesn't get it, simple as that.

I do know my limitations and my strengths. I also know that placating whining, complaining, rude, obnoxious, and/or downright insane customers (not saying any one of you is any or all of these things in particular) only encourages more of it. That's what 15 years in this business has shown. You wear my shoes for 15 years and walk in them, then we can talk on equal terms.

Quit putting down their superb efforts of CMx1 in defense of CMx2. Is it hard to equal or exceed initial success? Yes, so don't devalue it in order to do so.

Since I made CMx1 I don't think I'm putting down MY superb efforts in making it. It's a great game system... fantastic in fact... but it isn't perfect and when someone tries to rip CMx2 a new arsehole based on some Pollyanna view of CMx1, I must correct the record. Or put another way, when someone devalues what I've done today by incorrectly comparing it to an exaggerated sense of value in what I did yesterday... I think it's only proper to correct the record so we can have a legitimate, factual discussion. You would instead prefer an emotional one that is quite outside the bounds of reason? I don't.

teeps ,

I like CMSF. I think Steve is well within his rights to vent his feelings as much as anyone else is. When there's such an open communication I choose to read Steve as responding as a person rather than a corporate lackey, and I much prefer it that way. Any other developer would have stopped responding by now, except for a perhaps a bland acknowledgement of posts every six months.

Thank you. That is indeed the trade off. If customers want to rant and rave like a child to my virtual face, I reserve the right to point that out. If they want to harp on what they don't have instead of what they do have, I reserve the right to point that out. When they heap praise on us, on the other hand, a simple "thanks!" is about all I do because more than that would be inappropriate. When people ask respectful questions, they get respectful answers (even if the questions are pointed or critical). So my posts are weighted in that way. People can choose to see my postings as nothing but a litany of customer abuse, but it's not a very accurate account of the facts.

The other choice is we could just not post at all. There is no third choice.

jeffsmith

So are you suggesting Steve fire himself ?

heh... well, I did officially demote myself when we hired Martin (Moon), so I guess it is possible I might fire myself

Meach ,

Some people are never satisfied. The game is good as it stands with 1.07 and it's gonna get better.

Thanks! The truth is some people do not want to be satisfied. Anybody that disagrees with this should be a professional psychologist with credentials, because otherwise I can't take a counter claim seriously

PanzerMike,

Wind in your cranks, guys.I am with you Meach. I think CMSF is pretty darn good since 1.07 and the guys at BFC still keep improving upon it. BFC have also listened to their customers and the result is a much better game.

The engine is great. I am so looking forward to seeing this engine at work in Normandy 1944. Modern combat just isn't really my thing, you know. But I recognize a good engine when I see one. No more sour grapes now please!

Thanks! Yes, one of the advantages of the DEPTH vs. BREADTH strategy we've been following is that all the things you see in CM:SF now that are good will remain and will be improved upon in the future. The game engine, therefore, is capable of getting better. The problem with CMx1 (the BEADTH strategy) is that the game engine was basically a dead end and improvements were next-to-impossible for us to put in. Sure, there was more of a bump at the beginning of the CMx2 process than anybody would have liked to have seen, but that's behind us now and you guys have years of cool stuff to look forward to, with each release being deeper than the one before it.

Steiner14

to me it seems, you don't acknowledge the different aspects of the involved roles.

The interests of the people running this company are (beside others) to make money and to keep in business.

The interests of you as customer are, to get the most for your money.

Do you see potential conflicts?

Fine, then you will understand what Steve said.

To be clear to you guys, we aren't looking to get rich off of you guys. We simply want to make a living that is inline with the time, capital outlay, and risk involved in making them. Anybody with any knowledge of software development, especially game development, knows that we are in a time intensive, expensive, and extremely risky business. A business model that doesn't support longevity, which includes compensation for time, is a losing model. Hence why you can count on one hand how many wargame companies exist today and yet can't likely count all the ones that have come and gone before. And we're not talking about small companies either, we're talking about big ones like SSI, Talonsoft, 360 Pacific, etc. as well. So it's pretty obvious that good business for us is good for the customer too.

Steve

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by Lurker765:

...

and for some reason you can't call in arty in a non-LOS spot in CMSF either.

1.06 readme:

"• Artillery and air support missions may be targeted without LOS in the setup phase."