1.07 Demo Feedback

[thewood]

Steve, I did that list around 1.05. I think it may have been just before or after 1.05.

The list was developed as what I thought was a fair and balanced view of a user who played a lot of both CM1 and CM2. A lot of it was influenced by issues that were still pretty serious in 1.04 and didn't seem to get fixed in 1.05, mainly TacAI self preservation and QBs.

I don't believe BFC was dishonest about CMSF, but it is what I call corporate honesty. That means you didn't lie, but the intent was to limit people being able to come back and point a finger at a quote that woould lay out culpability.

BFC could have said, "hey, we screwed up. it isn't ready, but against our policy we are shipping it. Here is the plan to fix it, have faith". Instead, we got, "Here it is, we have a minor patch and a little further tweaking to do, but its the best game ever. and btw, CM1 was not very good when we released it either." That is obviously paraphrased. That is what rubbed, IMO, a lot of BFC fans the wrong way.

Its water under the bridge at this point. The game is almost where I would have expected it.

Now to the list. I stand by it, even after 1.06 (haven't upgraded to 1.07 yet). Lets look at your list:

1) Arty only really works effectively for human player and even then took several patches.

2)My list already said that was a positive

3)That is good accomplishment, but only if the entire system is working. I don't care if the physics system is right...is the T72 is shooting the wrong ammo. I would rather have a less accurate physics model, but have the actual systems doing the things they are supposed to.

4)My list stated that 1:1 was an advantage

5) Yes, but several still seem to not work, or don't work as the manual state. Plus, I already covered the editor on my list.

6)Terrain is more accurate, but still lacks some basics like water

7)OK, here it may be true, but haven't been able to tell what difference it makes, but still an advancement

8)OK, that is cool, but I am still not sure how that impacts what is happening. I have no reference as what this means for the equipment that is available

9)Prebattle Breifings are number 100 on my list of priorities, but are better than CM1

10)This is good. Still issues with it in replays.

Now as to my list, I did cover most of the same stuff you seem to feel I neglected. For C2, what I was trying to get across, I still don't understand how you can say its a huge advancement when troops can react orders immediately. Yes the spotting thing is great, but it has some significant holes in the C2 model. Once again, look at how POA2 handled it 3 years ago. I get real spotting reports when I hover over an icon. What type of spotting, how long ago, and who is spotting. In CMSF, that would be great.

As far as replays go, at 1.05, replays still had huge issues with not resetting status or terrain. Mostly resolved now, but very evident then.

One thing that BFC and the beta testers should do is go back and look at the reaction to the first initial reviews of CMSF and your collective reactions to them. Then look at your reactions to some of the criticism from customers. There is a pattern there that hopefully educated us all.

In the end, I like CMSF. I don't like coming to the board any more, but I have to keep up on the updates. Also, lack of design notes means its the only way to really figure out what is going on. On the other hand, I love CM1. I like going to those boards, even though I don't have to. That is an individual commentary in action.

[Lurker765]

Slowmotion,

Thanks for the note, but I was referring to the mid-game arty. In real life (or CMx1) you can call in arty to a grid location (or non-LOS) and get more inaccurate results (in CMx1).

It is nice to be able to call in arty without LOS in the setup phase, but I have often times used non-LOS smoke arty to cover an advance in an emergency and I miss that kind of feature.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

Just to make sure we're looking at the same things in the same way, do you agree with this statement?

Nothing is perfect, therefore the only fair evaluation of two things is to assess which one is on the whole better.

That sound right to you? And that means that if something has 2 features and something has 10, the fact that the thing with 10 lacks 1 should be kept in perspective with the whole? I hope so

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.

Sure, the CMx2 system isn't perfect. Obviously. But does this outweigh things like being able to call down artillery in several different forms, with control over star and duration, automatic spotting adjustment, specifying the area or direction to cover, etc? No, especially if playing multiplayer which was the thrust of Lurker765's post.

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

Correct, but once again would you rather have casualties, flags, and map exit for options or the myriad of options in CMx2, such as asymmetrical objectives, having to hold vs. take, avoid or cause destruction, etc? On balance I don't think there is any question... CMx2 is vastly superior, even without map edge exit.

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

True, CMx1 did have a rudimentary briefing system. But it didn't have the tie in to the map graphic and there wasn't a summary of the scenario prior to selecting it to play. Not only that, but the CMx1 format was free form so there was not as much commonality from briefing to briefing while in CMx2 there is at least an enforced format that help create a common format.

10. Deformable terrainBut once deformed it can't reset for the replay in WEGO mode.

Which has zero impact on the gameplay other than being an annoyance if noticed and only if played in WeGo. Surely this doesn't mean that you'd rather have non-deformable terrain like in CMx1 instead of this rather minor bug that will eventually get fully fixed?

You see, that's the primary point of my recent posts. One can pick apart the "flaws" in CMx2 on their own in a vacuum or in a favorable (i.e. highly selective) comparison to CMx1. Since I don't think it's fair to call a glass that is mostly full as mostly empty I am quite right to point out that that is indeed what some people are doing. Now, this isn't to say you have to like the mostly full glass of Coke over the smaller amount of Pepsi in the other glass. That's something I can now, and always have, accepted as a legitimate customer position. But don't try to tell me that Pepsi is better because there is either more of it than Coke or that the Coke is actually urine we've colored with food coloring. That's not acceptable and to any rational person it should be obvious why

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

Perhaps the problem is that CMx2 has so many more features than CMx1 that the greater complexity makes it more prone to breaking down. To borrow your often used car analogy, imagine you sold your old bog-standard car and bought one with loads of fancy features like sat-nav, traction control, cruise control, a passenger entertainment system and climate control. At first you think, wow, this car is way better than my old one.

However, after a few months of using the new car, you notice it has lots of problems. Sometimes the sat-nav doesn't work. The passenger entertainment system sometimes switches channel on its own when you go over a bump. The manual says the climate control system is supposed to turn off when the temperature reaches a certain level but it never turns off. After a while you start to feel nostalgic for the old car. In fact, you start to really hate the new one.

I think CMx2 has fallen foul of this situation. Added complexity brings with it more opportunities for the system to stop working or not work as advertised. When such problems occur, it detracts from your enjoyment of the product.

In many ways, greater depth does not necessarily make for greater enjoyment if it brings with it a whole host of niggling problems.

I am not trying to decry the efforts of BFC and I do like a lot of what I see in CM:SF. After all, it was me who sung the praises of the new demo when I first started this thread. I am just trying to explain why it might be that CM:SF has been a somewhat painful experience for a lot of users despite its greater depth compared to CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

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.

On the whole the system is much better now, in its current state, than it was in CMx1. As far as the on map mortar thing goes... we're talking about the US 60mm mortar only, you do realize. And according to US doctrine it likely wouldn't be within eyeshot of a CM sized battle. That's why they aren't in there... not needed.

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.

Well, that's not what I call a "unit encyclopedia", that's what I call statistics. To see the difference look at TacOps or Steel Panthers to see what I picture when I hear "unit encyclopedia". As for why there are stats shown in CM:SF, we do need to show more than we started out with HOWEVER we can never show the sorts of things found in CMx1. Why? Because CMx1 was a greatly abstracted system and CMx2 is not. So it's not practical to show it. Plus, we really don't feel it's all that important to have large volumes of numbers that really aren't meaningful because they are too complicated to understand in a way that is relevant to the game. Obviously you can disagree.

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.

Depth vs. Breadth. The terrain system in CMx2 is vastly, and quantitatively superior, to that in CMx1. Any argument against that statement would be rather, well, not credible. Sure the breadth isn't there, but we always said that would be the case, therefore you might as well complain that CMx2 doesn't have the ability to simulate the surface of Mars or what not. It's outside of its scope and if you don't like it, then go and buy some other highly detailed 3D wargame that does have the terrain you're looking for.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you should realize that it is just an opinion. I hold a different one. But regardless, from a mechanics standpoint CMx2's underlying treatment is greater than CMx1, even if you don't understand all the underlying game mechanics reasons why.

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.

Sheeesh... more glass half empty thinking. Sure, the glass is as empty as you wish to perceive it to be. There's nothing I can do about that but point out that you are focused on one small negative and not looking at all of the positives. For example, a unit is able to be suppressed without being panicked. You really don't remember how many problems that caused in CMx1?

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

Already covered.

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.

Glass half full thinking again and my standard response.

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.

More glass half full. As for WEGO TCP/IP thing, that was an accident. "Loyal Customers" would grant us some slack for making an honest mistake. As for the rest of the stuff, it's a matter of opinion. We hae a working QB system and it is being supported, it just isn't what people wanted it to be. It's not the same thing.

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.

At some point even we don't have a choice. If the low wall bug thing was caught even a day earlier we would have delayed v1.05's release, but it wasn't so we didn't. I don't really care if you understand why that is because that's sometimes just the way it goes.

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).

When any generalized statement is made about customers to me you have to understand that I will respond with a generalized statement that is relatively targeted as a counter balance. Look back at the first week of posts on this Forum and tell me that all our "loyal customers" were as even tempered as you. You'll have a hard time finding them amongst the ranting and raving. Which, BTW, we expected a lot of anyway since way too many people had chips on their shoulders starting from the time we announced the setting or that we weren't going to include the kitchen sink ever again. Some people live in a world of self fulfilling prophecies.

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?

Again, glass half full thinking. We put in a QB system that we thought was adequate. We quickly became aware that no amount of tweaking it would make it acceptable to the amount of people we wanted. So instead of diverting our resources into something that we'll ultimately yank out for a radically improved implementation, we instead spent our time dealing with other issues. And we were honest about that too. So the way I see it is we have not only been honest, but we have listened and we have promised to do better soon. You can view that negatively if you like, but in most people's minds I would think this would be seen as a rare and extremely positive thing in the games business.

I don't see how we can both read the same links and come to opposite conclusions.

Because you are LOOKING for negativity and ignoring anything that doesn't conform. That's evident through this entire post.

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?

Because you claimed it was "unstable" for anything over mid-sized battles. There is only ONE GUY talking about that and I'm pretty sure he eventually got it to work after fixing something on his end. And even if he didn't, if it was that bad there would be a lot more than one person experiencing problems. But the guys in the other threads you linked to show that it works fine in that regard and it is even praised in a couple of spots. So yeah, because I'm not looking to be negative I do indeed look at those posts differently.

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.

I do not spin, I offer perspective when it is lacking. You can call that whatever you want, of course, but calling it that doesn't mean it is.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Well, since I’m finally playing the demo now after many months of waiting (first because I needed to get a new computer capable of playing the thing, and then for an up-to-date demo; trying the 1.04 demo when the game was on 1.05+ seemed silly), I suppose I’ll put my $.02 down. It’s a slow day at work, so I’m going give it the full meal deal; read, skim or skip as is your wont.

I find the combat simulation to be fundamentally solid and believable; I’m really enjoying the 1:1 representation and other improvements over the CMx1 engine. While there are certainly features I would love to see eventually included, speaking as someone who is jumping directly from CMAK to CMSF 1.07, I don’t feel like the combat simulation in CMSF is “missing” anything it needs to be fun and playable at this point, and for me it is a vast improvement over the CMx1 engine.

I am finding the command interface a bit klunky, and the camera defaults could definitely be improved. For example, when you lock the camera onto a unit, in views “3” and “4”, the unit you’re lock onto isn’t visible, which is confusing and weird.

These player interface issues are especially important for Real Time. I usually play CMx1 with a beer in one hand; not so much with CMSF – you need both hands on deck to keep up with the action in Real Time! :eek:

It’s a good thing that CMSF doesn’t generally emulate more mainstream RTS games like the Command and Conquer, but I do think there are some improvements to the player interface that could be gleaned by looking at how more mainstream products do things. For example, giving the player some kind of “camera presents” would be handy. It would be helpful to be able set the camera at a particularly important location, hit CTRL + F1 - F4 to save the location to a preset, and then be able to jump the camera back to that location by hitting F1 – F4 at any time. Same goes for group select. I would be great to be able to select a group (say, my overwatch group), and then save this group select to a hotkey for future use.

While I loved WEGO in CMx1, I am rapidly coming to really appreciate Real Time, and I think I’ll like it even better once I get more comfortable with the command interface. I’m especially enjoying Real Time Elite mode, as I think it adds a realistic element of uncertainty. You must obey the infamous KISS rule when playing Real Time Elite. I think this a great overlooked realism improvement over CMx1. In CMx1, the dual effects of WEGO and Borg Spotting often rewarded unrealistically complex tactical plans that likely would have degraded into disorganized chaos on a real battlefield. Such parade ground maneuvering is extremely difficult to pull off in Real Time Elite, and I count this as an improvement.

There is, however, one specific area where I find Real Time pretty disappointing. This has been mentioned before, but I REALLY miss the cinematic element of being able to rewind and watch exciting parts of the action when playing Real Time. When playing CMSF in Real Time, I often find myself either (a) missing really cool parts of the action entirely, or ( having to stay up at higher view levels, so I can keep my eye on more of the battlefield, and in so doing missing the opportunity to watch the really fun view level 1 or 2 cinematics.

So, I would really like to see BFC prioritize the addition of some kind of rewind/playback feature to Real Time. I know this has been discussed before, and I am aware of the challenges this represents. Obviously, saveable full game rewind would be the Holy Grail, but even being able to play back the previous 10-20 seconds of action while in pause mode would add immensely to the entertainment value of the game for me.

I did not expect to have this reaction before I tried the demo, but for me personally this is actually more important that adding major new combat modeling features, like water, off-board artillery smoke missions, on-map mortars, etc. Not that I don’t want to see these things added; I’d just like to see at least a rudimentary Real Time playback first. . . I’m sure others opinions differ on where priorities should be.

I drive a Mac now, so until the OSX native version comes out, playing CMSF entails rebooting into Windows. As of right now, this additional PITA is what’s stopping me from buying the game. For me the game is solid, but not exceptional enough to justify the reboot. I don’t have a heck of a lot of time for gaming, so an extra 5 minutes rebooting on both ends of my play session really does cut in to the fun time

So I’ll probably wait until the Mac version comes out to buy the full game. A basic action replay option added to Real Time would probably also induce me to break down and buy the game right away.

In any event, keep up the good work, BFC. I look forward to future improvements, and enjoying the full game, either once the OSX version comes out, or when you get around to adding a Real Time replay feature (or both!!).

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

Thewood,

Steve, I did that list around 1.05. I think it may have been just before or after 1.05.

Yup, I thought that was your list!

The list was developed as what I thought was a fair and balanced view of a user who played a lot of both CM1 and CM2. A lot of it was influenced by issues that were still pretty serious in 1.04 and didn't seem to get fixed in 1.05, mainly TacAI self preservation and QBs.

I don't see your list as being unfair, as much as I see it as incomplete. But regardless, even if CM:SF lacked the one major feature that someone loved in CMx1, I understand that person not caring that CM:SF has tons more stuff than CMx1. What I can't accept are arguments that CM:SF has less in it than CMx1 (empirically) or that CMx1 was some sort of manifestation of perfection and therefore it is hearsay for me to argue with uninformed comparisons.

I don't believe BFC was dishonest about CMSF, but it is what I call corporate honesty. That means you didn't lie, but the intent was to limit people being able to come back and point a finger at a quote that woould lay out culpability.

We are a business first, otherwise we wouldn't be here to make games. Having said that, the problems with the reactions to the initial release aren't so simple to classify. We anticipated a LOT of anger at us for things that we changed even when they worked perfectly, and we got that. Thrown into this mix were a lot of anger directed at us for things that didn't work perfectly. We expected that too, but the two often got confused together (and that is somewhat understandable now with hindsight) and that make things quite difficult to handle.

That is obviously paraphrased. That is what rubbed, IMO, a lot of BFC fans the wrong way.

It was aimed at the people that came gunning for us as they were the most significant source of anger on the Forums in the early days. They needed a reality check. Unfortunately, when I communicate with someone specifically (either an individual or a group of like minded individuals) other people decide it applies to them as well and they get bent out of shape. This is the difference between normal public affairs, like you deal with, and handling a bunch of people that are prone to being emotional. Gamers are, wargamers even more so. They make it personal so there is no way to avoid having it be personal right back at them, no matter what I say.

Its water under the bridge at this point. The game is almost where I would have expected it.

Thanks. Despite rather harsh criticism from you, and some rather unpleasant personal attacks against me in places you know I won't come to defend myself, I am glad you can put that aside and see things for what they are instead of merely going on perception and unreasonable expectations.

3)That is good accomplishment, but only if the entire system is working. I don't care if the physics system is right...is the T72 is shooting the wrong ammo. I would rather have a less accurate physics model, but have the actual systems doing the things they are supposed to.

It isn't the "wrong" ammo per say, rather the TacAI trying to do the technical best that it can in a bad situation. SOP is to fire HE at an armored target when you know there is no hope of AP doing squat. The argument for AP being fired is, however, legitimate in the sense that SOP likely wouldn't be followed by poor quality crews. So we have addressed this already.

6)Terrain is more accurate, but still lacks some basics like water

True, but that's a very minor issue for a largely arid environment. Look at a map of Syria and it's not like that of France. For France we must put in water and we will, but since it's using the same terrain model there is actually no change to the modeling itself. Just an enhancement of it.

Now as to my list, I did cover most of the same stuff you seem to feel I neglected. For C2, what I was trying to get across, I still don't understand how you can say its a huge advancement when troops can react orders immediately.

Relative Spotting can't work without the C2 model we have, so besides all the other benefits the C2 system CM:SF has allows for Relative Spotting. Something you put as a + on your list. As for not having CMx1 style "Command Delays" I will remind you that even years after we put them in there is still a significant amount of debate about if they are realistic or overall beneficial to the game system. We decided to try without Command Delays and for the most part we are pleased with the results. Having said that, we aren't ruling out reintroducing the concept at a later date. There is some justification for wanting it back in, downsides and all.

Yes the spotting thing is great, but it has some significant holes in the C2 model. Once again, look at how POA2 handled it 3 years ago. I get real spotting reports when I hover over an icon. What type of spotting, how long ago, and who is spotting. In CMSF, that would be great.

For a game like POA2 that might be relevant, but I think it is not only unnecessary for a game of CM's scale but I think it is largely useless.

As far as replays go, at 1.05, replays still had huge issues with not resetting status or terrain. Mostly resolved now, but very evident then.

Yes, though of course they didn't ever effect the results and were fairly minor in terms of how bad they were compared to how bad they could be (tanks driving upside down, soldiers having the wrong uniforms, etc.). I know because we did have some stuff like that during development So when you said "No, once again, not even close" about Replays, you really can't expect me to take such a criticism with more than a pinch of salt, can you?

One thing that BFC and the beta testers should do is go back and look at the reaction to the first initial reviews of CMSF and your collective reactions to them. Then look at your reactions to some of the criticism from customers. There is a pattern there that hopefully educated us all.

Yes, as I alluded to above. Some of the criticism was justified but it was mixed in with so much stuff that either wasn't true or at least wasn't fair, it got the whole start off on the wrong foot. So I expect that in any outsider's evaluation of the initial phase of release that they would see plenty of room for behavior all around, at the very least.

In the end, I like CMSF. I don't like coming to the board any more, but I have to keep up on the updates. Also, lack of design notes means its the only way to really figure out what is going on. On the other hand, I love CM1. I like going to those boards, even though I don't have to. That is an individual commentary in action.

And one I would never try to dissuade you from. As I have said thousands of times before, an opinion is fine with me when it is clearly voiced as an opinion. When customers confuse the two things become much more difficult for everybody.

Steve

[thewood]

I find this interesting:

"I’m especially enjoying Real Time Elite mode, as I think it adds a realistic element of uncertainty. You must obey the infamous KISS rule when playing Real Time Elite. I think this a great overlooked realism improvement over CMx1. In CMx1, the dual effects of WEGO and Borg Spotting often rewarded unrealistically complex tactical plans that likely would have degraded into disorganized chaos on a real battlefield. Such parade ground maneuvering is extremely difficult to pull off in Real Time Elite, and I count this as an improvement."

The added FOW with the non-borg spotting is quite good. It does force you to make plans simpler and more flexible. I find this same thing in POA2 and is the main reason I still play both these games.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

Perhaps the problem is that CMx2 has so many more features than CMx1 that the greater complexity makes it more prone to breaking down.

Yes, that is a fair statement. Anything built has a degree of fallibility somewhat proportional to its complexity even in best cases. In worst cases a complex thing can work better than a more simple one or vice versa. Software is, in many ways, more prone to complexity problems than other things. The reason is software is generally trying to be something that hasn't been done before. You can't just consult an engineering book and know that you have to x number of inches of steel to support y amount of weight. It's all guesswork and it is very hard to get correct. But well built products made by competent engineers do get better. Heck, even Windows has gotten better

I think CMx2 has fallen foul of this situation. Added complexity brings with it more opportunities for the system to stop working or not work as advertised. When such problems occur, it detracts from your enjoyment of the product.

Yes, this too is a fair statement. I've never argued with people for not liking what we do, but I do sometimes object to HOW they express that. I have the same problem with people saying CM:SF sucks for this or that flawed reason just as I had a problem with the Close Combat and Steel Panthers guys saying CMBO sucked ass because it wasn't RT or Top Down, or something else equally contestable. The fact is the CC and SP guys hated CMBO with a passion more than they liked it. I can't change that, therefore I accept it. I don't accept, however, that SP or CC are superior combat simulations. Those sorts of arguments I can easily kick to the curb just as I can people trying to make the case that CMx1 is overall superior to CMx2 on similar flawed and selective logic.

In many ways, greater depth does not necessarily make for greater enjoyment if it brings with it a whole host of niggling problems.

Very true. It's the risk we took with CMBO and it had a love/hate reaction when it came out, depending on what people wanted out of their gaming experience.

I am not trying to decry the efforts of BFC and I do like a lot of what I see in CM:SF. After all, it was me who sung the praises of the new demo when I first started this thread. I am just trying to explain why it might be that CM:SF has been a somewhat painful experience for a lot of users despite its greater depth compared to CMx1.

Believe me I understand this and it is why I never have, and never will, challenge someone who says they are disappointed with the buggy release or the fact that their personal pet feature wasn't included. Instead I save my challenges for people who try to distort the facts to somehow justify their position as empirical instead of an opinion.

Then of course there is the minority that felt that if we slapped a new coat of paint onto CMx1 we would be millionaires. Those guys are so clueless I don't know what to do with them other than to recommend that they keep their day jobs and not go into games development There is a reason that 10+ years after starting CM that there have only been 2 significant attempts to "compete" with us, both of which CM fans have largely found not up to the task. I doubt anybody will be dumb enough to try it. Well, other than us

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Thanks! That's some good feedback for sure. It's the sort of thing we like to see, in that it is a balanced mix of praise and constructive criticism. If all our customers were like this we'd be happy for about 2 second before having a stroke from the shock of it

I hear you loud and clear about the RT replay desirability. I'm right there with you. All I can say is that we do have it high up on our priorities list, but we have no idea when we can do it. The RAM and I/O issues are rather significant.

Having said that, we are hopefully that we can at least keep a running replay for some meaningful portion of time. Meaning, if we can't get a minute captured we'd settle for even 10 seconds. Not the same, obviously, but if you noticed you missed seeing something, or saw something cool you wanted to see again, then 10 seconds is probably good enough.

As for your comments about RT and the effects of Relative Spotting... obviously I think you are spot on Some wargamers don't like chaos, which is one major reason why so many Steel Panthers guys hate Combat Mission. SP has almost no chaos, and chaos is something that we have found either thrills wargamers or makes them want to hurl up their lunch. There's some middle ground there, for sure, but largely it is a hate it or love it sort of thing. CMx1 had a lot of chaos in it and CMx2 has much more, so we aren't surprised that some people are finding the chaos more exciting or less desirable.

I also want to see more RTS type UI controls. Believe me, I have a nice long list of them right here on my harddrive. But I'm not the coder so I can only advocate, not dictate when they get introduced. But they will eventually as Charles sees the value in them too.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, as an aside about software complexity and chance of failure... if anybody here goes to use the PayPal Express Checkout on our website, or any other website for that matter, you will find it either disabled or not working. Why? Because since last Thursday the entire system has been down do to some sort of software engineering problem on their end. Even multi-Billion Dollar companies can have some issues to deal with their core technology

Steve

[thewood]

Steve, one of the major things CM lost in the translation from CM1 is the variability in info on spotted units. CM1 and POA2 were the only tactical games I have seen to get it right. For all the steps forward in CM2, knowing exactly what the unit is that you spotted as soon as you have a definitive spot is almost as big a step back, as the relative spotting step forward.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, as an aside about software complexity and chance of failure... if anybody here goes to use the PayPal Express Checkout on our website, or any other website for that matter, you will find it either disabled or not working. Why? Because since last Thursday the entire system has been down do to some sort of software engineering problem on their end. Even multi-Billion Dollar companies can have some issues to deal with their core technology

Steve

And they usually take big stock hits for even small glitches, especially companies that depend on online cash streams.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Even multi-Billion Dollar companies can have some issues to deal with their core technology

Steve

Don't laugh or we'll shut down You Tube again! :mad:

[Lurker765]

Steve,

Probably my final post in this thread, but I don't think we are that far apart. The potential for this game is there, it is just a question of when it arrives and what the journey to that point is like.

When you say that CMSF has a physics model and CMx1 does not I initially agreed. Then I played CMSF and saw rockets go through berms and hit my tanks. When that was questioned people were shouted down by posters on the board and told that you can easily shoot and kill tanks through berms and it happened all the time in the Gulf War, etc. Then, eventually the LOS routines are changed to prevent shooting through ridges and trenches. It makes it difficult to believe that the physics model makes a good difference if the only evidence I saw were bullets and shells going through solid earth and killing tanks and people.

So, when someone in the beginning questions what they are seeing and then being told that it is much better than the non-physics CMx1 it is difficult to agree with. Especially when you get piled on by the true believers and even more especially when the entire mechanics end up changing to prevent this 'feature' at a later date.

The same applies to the doors/windows. In CMx1 you could sneak into houses from all directions since they were abstracted. In CMSF I see the windows, but I can't break in one and climb through it. Instead my men have to run around the street to the door. I can't see the benefit from that.

You say you listen to your customers. We (or, I guess, I) agree, but the process of getting there hasn't been a pretty one. I mean, even getting the spacebar GUI change put in was like pulling teeth and you already had the code in the system and just needed to uncomment it and recompile. Why has this become such an antagonistic relationship?

In any event, it appears that your hard work is finally paying off. I just hope that reviewers like Tom Chick (just to name one at random) haven't been totally soured on the experience of getting to this point and that they will give your next game/module an unbiased review.

[ February 26, 2008, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Lurker765 ]

[Lurker765]

And my apologies to Cpl Steiner for somewhat hijacking your thread.

I did try to tie it back in to the reviewers since you mentioned plopping it back on their desks again.

Good hunting everyone

[thewood]

This may be the key to the "sour" feeling have towards CMSF right now, including reviewers:

"So, when someone in the beginning questions what they are seeing and then being told that it is much better than the non-physics CMx1 it is difficult to agree with. Especially when you get piled on by the true believers and even more especially when the entire mechanics end up changing to prevent this 'feature' at a later date."

I can only think of Redwolf's big experiment with turning. Instead of people saying, "oh yeah, that is an issue", there was all kinds of ratioalization and outright anger at Redwolf conducting a pretty time consuming test. Guess what? It changed a couple of patches later. That fits the lurkers model.

[Taki]

I tryed some QB 1.07 with an Online Player. Set almost everything to random and gave it a try.

Map looked very Promising and i had a Mounted Company with Bradleys. As we started the Game we had Same Setup Zones and it was a 20min setup 10min playing mess since we quit.

I thought that QUickbattles should be working now? Am i wrong?

[We Build We Fight]

STEVE: 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.

What you put in the game with the additional year was QUALITY. Would it have sold the same? Maybe. Would it be considered as well today as it is? Probably not.

quote:

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

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?

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

STEVE: 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.

All that could not have happened without the additional quality you built in. The work on tournaments today is greatly enhanced because of these details.

Not willing to pay? Who said that? I have all three CMx1 games (CMx2 too!) I would be willing to pay more for the type of detail you put into CMx1. When you play games and tournaments for years after the initial investment, paying more for this enjoyment is easy. Paying $135 for games played over 7 years is what, $1.60 a month? Come on, charge me double, triple but give me what I want.

quote:

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

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.

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

STEVE: 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.

When a customer lays down your asking price for your product, that buys a little respect. The totally obnoxious posters must be ignored. When you respond angerly, you're just lowering yourself to their level. That does you no good. Don't placate the jerks, ignore them. It's been your outbursts from time to time that is your weakness, not a strength.

You've lost some CMx1 players already and stated you expected it. There's a chip on your shoulder about the way you dismiss it that rubs many the wrong way. I just don't think that was necessary.

I will say I still have high hopes for CMx2. I don't care much for the SF world you've built and that's OK. I believe you'll continue to improve the game to the point where I'll enjoy it a great bit in a WWII setting. I'm even hoping for a post WWII - pre 1960 battle set where we can imagine all sorts of Soviet-NATO action (hint hint).

Thanks for pounding out the patches and keep in mind I've got more than $1.60/month in my pocket for what I want!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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.

I've mentioned many, many times that Steve's problem is that all the detail he keeps insisting we are too stupid to appreciate was put into CM:SF "under the hood". And CM players are like Missourians. I couldn't care less whether or not the actual weight of the web gear is modelled, and if the cyclic rate of the M-16 was off by even 300%, it wouldn't bother me, in comparison to some of the now "missing" features you describe, such as building damage tags or our favourite old commands, or the ability to actually use the windows as entry points.

Like you say - if there is no pop up menu for unit stats (weights, penetration, ROF) etc., what good is all that detail? Saying CM:SF is "better" than CMX1 is a value judgement. Clearly, just because something was packed with more detail, if the interface with that detail is faulty or missing, you cannot possibly have a "better" game. The model may be better, but who cares? Models sit on shelves and get looked at. Games get played.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

You say you listen to your customers. We (or, I guess, I) agree, but the process of getting there hasn't been a pretty one. I mean, even getting the spacebar GUI change put in was like pulling teeth and you already had the code in the system and just needed to uncomment it and recompile. Why has this become such an antagonistic relationship?

Er... because a significant number of customers insisted that it be that. The reasonable people, you included, seem to have missed people saying that the game is "fundamentally broken" and will never be fixed, that we should throw out everything and revert to CMx1, there is "no WeGo" because there is no blue bar, we are utter fools for trying something different, RealTime is unplayable, the game is just a sell out RTS, etc. etc. etc. Me? I don't have the pleasure of only seeing just the polite and reasonable customers.

I do agree that we have suffered for having CM:SF look too good. We created a simulated environment that is vastly superior to CMx1, but still with some degree of abstraction. Some people saw this as a major step forward and the occasional visual issues (shooting through berms, and what not) were nothing compared to the completely abstracted system in CMx1. In other words, we felt it pretty obvious that less abstraction was a step forward, but more people than we expected felt that the game should be one way or the other - 100% realistic, without any faults at all (which is impossible, mind you) or nearly 100% abstraction. Makes no rational sense to us, but that's exactly what we've experienced to a large degree even from reasonable people such as yourself. In other words, everything less than a full glass is a glass half empty.

thewood,

I can only think of Redwolf's big experiment with turning. Instead of people saying, "oh yeah, that is an issue", there was all kinds of ratioalization and outright anger at Redwolf conducting a pretty time consuming test. Guess what? It changed a couple of patches later. That fits the lurkers model.

Redwolf, as he very frequently does, presents a position that is extreme and demonstrably incorrect. He then sticks to it like a liferaft in shark infested water and hurtles insults at anybody that disagrees with him. Reexamination of his premiss is absolutely NOTHING not in his nature. He has spoken, it is as stated, therefore no discussion needed. His supposed keen understanding of the way LOS/LOF works over at GameSquad was so far from reality that it was quite funny (well, except some people bought it hook line and sinker without double checking the sources). It's the way he's been for the last 5 or so years here so it colors the discussions he tries to have (i.e. because he does not want discussion).

Sure, the pathing needed some fixes. But according to Redwolf's assertion everybody else that WASN'T having a problem was... I dunno... lying or something. It was a massive waste of time is about the only thing I will agree with you on.

Taki,

I thought that QUickbattles should be working now?

We think it might be a problem with one of the maps. Which map did you use?

We Build We Fight,

What you put in the game with the additional year was QUALITY. Would it have sold the same? Maybe. Would it be considered as well today as it is? Probably not.

No, what took us the year was a ton of stuff that we didn't need to add to get people to buy the game. Would it have sold the same? Yes. Would it have been consider as well today as it is? Yes. Why? Well, how many other 3D tactical simulations of the Eastern Front are there to have bought instead?

ZERO

I highly doubt someone wouldn't have bought CMBB if there were no Italian units in it.

All that could not have happened without the additional quality you built in. The work on tournaments today is greatly enhanced because of these details.

A how does this put food on my table? It doesn't and that's my point. I think it's great that tournaments have been going on for the last 7 years. Fantastic even. But I would also be happy with 1 or 2 years and have spent 1/2 as much of my time, energy, and resources to achieve it.

Not willing to pay? Who said that? I have all three CMx1 games (CMx2 too!) I would be willing to pay more for the type of detail you put into CMx1.

Good, because that's the model we've moved to. The game engine itself is far deeper and more detailed than CMx1 is, but the scope of any one release isn't as broad. Over time the setting of each major release (aka Title) gets broader by the introduction of extra units (aka Modules). Therefore, customers who want to pay for a broader experience can get it and we get compensated for it. Win-win situation.

When you play games and tournaments for years after the initial investment, paying more for this enjoyment is easy. Paying $135 for games played over 7 years is what, $1.60 a month? Come on, charge me double, triple but give me what I want.

This would work fine if there were more than a handful of people willing to do this AND put the money up front 2 years or more before the game is released. But I'm a realist so I know this is not possible, therefore we are sticking to our new business model.

When a customer lays down your asking price for your product, that buys a little respect.

No, it buys a game since that is all we are selling. However, by default customers are respected until they prove that they do not deserve it. They have to try really hard for that to happen, though. For the most part I have a great deal of respect for the bulk of CM's customers and have a TON of respect for some in particular, but it isn't because of the money they spent. In the end if a customer is polite, critical or not, then respect is earned through interaction.

The totally obnoxious posters must be ignored. When you respond angerly, you're just lowering yourself to their level.

I'm not angry, I simply point out where they are wrong. That angers them, however.

You've lost some CMx1 players already and stated you expected it. There's a chip on your shoulder about the way you dismiss it that rubs many the wrong way. I just don't think that was necessary.

It was a statement of fact made to counter the notion that we had some sort of obligation to make every CMx1 player thrilled with CM:SF specifically and/or the game engine in general. Such people needed a reality check.

I will say I still have high hopes for CMx2. I don't care much for the SF world you've built and that's OK. I believe you'll continue to improve the game to the point where I'll enjoy it a great bit in a WWII setting. I'm even hoping for a post WWII - pre 1960 battle set where we can imagine all sorts of Soviet-NATO action (hint hint).

Thanks for that. I don't know if we'll ever get around to putting in pre 1990s NATO forces, but I guess I shouldn't say it won't happen. Not on our development schedule though.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

I've mentioned many, many times that Steve's problem is that all the detail he keeps insisting we are too stupid to appreciate was put into CM:SF "under the hood". And CM players are like Missourians. I couldn't care less whether or not the actual weight of the web gear is modelled, and if the cyclic rate of the M-16 was off by even 300%, it wouldn't bother me, in comparison to some of the now "missing" features you describe, such as building damage tags or our favourite old commands, or the ability to actually use the windows as entry points.

Wargamers are really funny people. They whine and complain about this or that detail not being accurate, then you give them a more accurate model and they whine and complain that unrealistic features (like entering buildings through windows) are missing.

Like you say - if there is no pop up menu for unit stats (weights, penetration, ROF) etc., what good is all that detail?

A car analogy for good old times...

Do you know EXACTLY how a Ferrari works under the hood, in the suspension, or the technical specs on its aerodynamic shape? No. So what you're saying is because you don't that if you were to take a ride down a highway in a Ferrari or a Ford Crown Victoria you would choose the Crown Vic because the door works the way you expect it to?

In a simulation the value in the details is a more realistic feeling outcome. That is the desired end product, not charts and tables of data for people to have arguments about on online Forums ("ooo, the Tiger's chin mantlet armor is 1.2345mm too thin!"). CMx1 didn't even have that sort of stuff, and what it did have was more-or-less relevant to that epoch we simulated. Armor thickness and angles in a modern game is almost meaningless.

Saying CM:SF is "better" than CMX1 is a value judgement.

Sure, just as saying CMx1 is "better" than CMx2.

Clearly, just because something was packed with more detail, if the interface with that detail is faulty or missing, you cannot possibly have a "better" game.

Er... that's also a value judgement, or are you saying that it isn't possible to like CM:SF as a game because it doesn't have Bren Tripods?

Now, I freely admit that there are plenty of CMx1 fans that hate CMx2 with a passion. Fine, but don't tell me it is because CMx1 is some sort of perfect creation that never should have been messed with. It was a game, and a good one at that, but it has its warts, flaws, and shortcomings like any other. The biggest shortcoming now being that it was dated and trying to remake it exactly as it would before would have put us out of business. For us that's a pretty big shortcoming. If you were smart enough to realize the implications of us going out of business on the wargaming hobby you would see it that way too.

Steve

[ February 27, 2008, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[PanzerMike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

YankeeDog,

Thanks! That's some good feedback for sure. It's the sort of thing we like to see, in that it is a balanced mix of praise and constructive criticism. If all our customers were like this we'd be happy for about 2 second before having a stroke from the shock of it

I hear you loud and clear about the RT replay desirability. I'm right there with you. All I can say is that we do have it high up on our priorities list, but we have no idea when we can do it. The RAM and I/O issues are rather significant.

Having said that, we are hopefully that we can at least keep a running replay for some meaningful portion of time. Meaning, if we can't get a minute captured we'd settle for even 10 seconds. Not the same, obviously, but if you noticed you missed seeing something, or saw something cool you wanted to see again, then 10 seconds is probably good enough.

Steve

I'm really glad everybody (customers and developer) seems convinced of the necessity of this. All the gorgeous details down on level 1/2 are mostly missed because of the need to hover over the battlefield. To truly witness the chaos (which is great) you really need te get down to the dirt and see for yourself (why the hell is my beatiful stryker on fire, it was fine a minute ago...what happened?)

Sure there is WEGO. It even seems to work a LOT better now with 1.07, but pausable RT is preferred as far as I am concerned.

Playback RT (if only for 10 seconds) is by far the most desirable feature to be added to this wonderful engine IMHO. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.

Oh, and thanks BFC for bringing us the this great game. It was a bumpy ride to were we stand now, but CMSF has arrived!

[Ross_Moorhouse]

I played the updated demo today. After a few goes at the different scenarios I went and bough the full game. Great stuff so far.