Need some advice

[R33GZ]

Im looking for a few words of advice on whether or not to purchase CM:SF.

The biggest thing holding me back is that I purchased TOW when it came out. It was great fun at first, then once the missions/campaigns were finished it became very, very dull.

I am not a fan of the scripting in TOW which makes it predictable and boring. I understand that CM:SF has some type of coding that gives the AI several options of attack/defense based on the players moves?

I have played the demo... its ok, but doesnt give too much away... guess that why its called a demo.

I guess what Im wanting to know is... does this game have good replayability, is the map/scenario editor easy to use (ie. do you need to be a code geek to use it effectively) and lastly, is the whole game based around a U.S. ass whopping of the Syrians.

Thanks in advance for any intelligent advice.

[Battlefront.com]

Honest advice is to wait for the v1.03 demo when it is made available. Should be in about 1-2 weeks. Obviously I don't think there is any reason to not buy the game now, however there are some things that will be included with the v1.03 patch that should help you make up your mind on your own.

Steve

[jomni]

Originally posted by R33GZ:

[QB] Im looking for a few words of advice on whether or not to purchase CM:SF.

The biggest thing holding me back is that I purchased TOW when it came out. It was great fun at first, then once the missions/campaigns were finished it became very, very dull.

We're getting a lot of user-made scenario's already that are sometimes better than the stock missions.

I am not a fan of the scripting in TOW which makes it predictable and boring. I understand that CM:SF has some type of coding that gives the AI several options of attack/defense based on the players moves?

In CMSF, we set a strategy for the AI. This tells the AI how to move along the map, which groups, and what are their SOP's (quick, assault, advance, etc). It's scripted in a sense but not scripted to the last detail. (More freedom for the AI). But we do have some problems with Tactical AI in the game (e.g. pathfinding problems and standing in front of enemy fire).

I guess what Im wanting to know is... does this game have good replayability, is the map/scenario editor easy to use (ie. do you need to be a code geek to use it effectively) and lastly,

There is great replay value in the game, if you ever get past the bugs. You can even edit the stock missions if you find the AI plan faulty (like what I did). You can play any side. You can set several (5?) general AI plans for each side and the AI will just randomly pick up one before the start of the battle.

is the whole game based around a U.S. ass whopping of the Syrians.

Nope, you can also set up a US vs US fight.

[John Catsack]

With all the pathfinding and TacAI problems in the game right now, you would probably only be disappointed.

Considering how poorly units handle movement orders, it's more of "Asswhooping anyone who moves" than asswooping syrians

[jomni]

Originally posted by John Catsack:

With all the pathfinding and TacAI problems in the game right now, you would probably only be disappointed.

Considering how poorly units handle movement orders, it's more of "Asswhooping anyone who moves" than asswooping syrians

That's why Battlefront said to wait for 1.03... which has some pathfinding and TacAI fixes.

[metalbrew]

I can't see CM:SF having any less replay value than the original CM games. However, if you only have interest in playing against the AI that's going to limit your replay. In previous CM games I mainly played test scenarios against the AI to figure out unit capabilities and practice against the TacAI (which was a decent defender in CMx1 games). I played (and still do) a lot of PBEM games and intend to do the same with CM:SF.

For now there's weird bugs affecting gameplay and I'd guess that's why Battlefront is saying "hold on a bit longer and check out the v1.03 demo before you buy".

Making multiplayer maps is pretty easy. You really only focus on the map itself since another player is going to be giving the orders.

Making good maps that the AI plays well is harder, but not difficult. The game is capable of having 5 plans per side. Each plan allows you to divide you units into up-to 8 groups. Each group can be assigned different courses of action. This concept includes setup zones, so you can have the AI choose different setup zones within different plans. It's not all roses, currently the only triggers are time-based, meaning the AI may just run out into an unsecured street based on it's time triggers and be slaughtered. I remember reading posts along the lines of "Battlefront has more in store for AI plans and triggers, but for now with the time crunch going on this isn't top priority". I hate to speak for them though, just passing along what I've read. Many of the AI plans in battles I've seen so far only have 1 or 2 plans per side. As time passes and people put more time into the editor, I'm sure we'll see battles with very slick AI plans.

I play mainly multiplayer games. The AI plans are a curiosity for me now but I'm not putting all my hopes for replay into it.

[Xavier_1986]

It's actually quite far from being an ass whopping of the Syrians. If you go into the game as the US player in say the campaign with that attitude... well, my recommendation is to wait for 1.03 and then see for yourself. The results of the battles are sometimes a bit surprising to say the least.

[thelmia]

Uh... I'd have to say not yet. There's a lot of little bugs that need to be dealt with, and some people have very large game-killing problems. I can't play multiplayer without bad lag, for instance. It'll be a really good game, but it's not there yet.

[R33GZ]

thanks a lot for all your response. Spend the weekend away from the computer and look what happens, answers and recomendations galore.

Cheers