Haters, please read.

[pad152]

I don't think the game is crap but unfinsihed! This game needs another 6 to 8 months of development, spit, and polish. I'm disapointed in BattleFont for releasing a game once again (like TOW) in this state and expected better from them. I own every game made by developers of Shock Force, including the air combat games made for AH, and I can state this is their worst release!

There are too many things that aren't finished or just don't work right.

1. Quick Battles

2. Mines and Engineers

3. Troop AI

4. LOS/LOF issues

5. Lack of ability to load troops with ATMs with the editor

6. Imcomplete TOE for US Army

7. Tacical AI needs improvement

8. Lack of ability to que orders in WEGO.

etc.

[Dirtweasle]

TOW sux, hates it I do! There I said it. :mad:

I figured TOW was a fluke, made by another firm and just distributed by BFC, and so it was not 100% in the mold of true BFC-tastic games like the CMx1 series.

I think it's may be there worse release, because like dalem wrote a page ago; Some folks don't like brocolli, and they thought the menu was promising a beef stew, now the waiter brings brocolli they told forget the stew, we're going vegasaurus from now on, and for Pete's sake don't look back at the menu and complain you were mislead!

...or sumfink.

[dalem]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The_Capt:

From what I have seen critics of the game fall into two catagories:

-snip-

And from what I have seen, critics of the critics of the game fall into two categories... etc.

-snip,snip- </font>

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

So chill and let them fix it. It took 4 years to get this far, whats a few more months. .

You've hit the nail right on its head (so to speak) as I mentioned in another thread, the game being delayed by several months would have allowed bugs to be fixed and saved BFC from a lot of negative posts from appearing.

I'm not talking about the game being delayed six months here either that would be uncalled for, but maybe 3/4 months if needed.

They (BFC) are only having to do now what would/could have been done if the game was delayed anyway, but obviously it's a business afterall and like any business money takes precedence.

I love BFC as much as the next guy and this isn't meant to sound negative either, rather I wanted to reitirate the fact that this would not have been an issue had extra time been given for further development. Time spent fixing bugs now could have been better spent on the next module, and that is perhaps what many people realise, or don't as the case may be.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

...but obviously it's a business afterall and like any business money takes precedence.

Actually, the customer takes precedence in any business.

[Bahger]

I'm not a hater and I resent being called that. Quite the opposite, I'm a supporter of BFC and their product but, even leaving aside the performance issues, which I have not experienced except for the Ati-related stuff, the tac-AI is simply not equal to the task of recreating the precision and mobility of modern-day MOUT, which depends on these abilities (plus effective comms and superior intel) in order to seize and retain the initiative in a hostile environment against a numerically superior enemy. With the less sophisticated weaponry, more evenly-matched forces and limited mobility of the WW2 battlefield, the severity of the tac-AI problems is not quite so critical. But if I'm fighting a Stryker company, I want vehicles to go exactly where they are ordered to go -- without doing doughnuts or turning their ass-end to the enemy -- and dismounts to find cover intelligently. I do not want vehicles to be skylining themselves on berms, making uncommanded hail-mary charges at the enemy or otherwise behaving as though they are being driven by drunken rednecks on a Saturday night.

Until the tac-AI can live up to the basic concept of the game, CMSF is an absolute failure for me, and saying so does not make me a "hater". In fact, if I did not admire the folks at BFC I would have sold this grievously hobbled game on eBay a long time ago instead of waiting for patches. I've played too many complex combat sims that, for all their issues, do basically live up to their own conceptual aspirations not to be able to recognise that the opposite is the case with this one, unfortunately.

[dalem]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

I love BFC as much as the next guy and this isn't meant to sound negative either, rather I wanted to reitirate the fact that this would not have been an issue had extra time been given for further development. Time spent fixing bugs now could have been better spent on the next module, and that is perhaps what many people realise, or don't as the case may be.

Hmm. Well, if I accept the position that CMSF was truly released in a Beta state, then the time factor for the next module irrelevant. If the game couldn't really be "done" until, say, January 2008, then releasing it in July 2007 and spending the next 4 months getting it up to release standards is not much different, if at all, from releasing it playable out of the box in January 2008 and then starting work on the next module then.

-dale

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:

...but obviously it's a business afterall and like any business money takes precedence.

Actually, the customer takes precedence in any business. </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:

...but obviously it's a business afterall and like any business money takes precedence.

Actually, the customer takes precedence in any business. </font>

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:

I love BFC as much as the next guy and this isn't meant to sound negative either, rather I wanted to reitirate the fact that this would not have been an issue had extra time been given for further development. Time spent fixing bugs now could have been better spent on the next module, and that is perhaps what many people realise, or don't as the case may be.

Hmm. Well, if I accept the position that CMSF was truly released in a Beta state, then the time factor for the next module irrelevant. If the game couldn't really be "done" until, say, January 2008, then releasing it in July 2007 and spending the next 4 months getting it up to release standards is not much different, if at all, from releasing it playable out of the box in January 2008 and then starting work on the next module then.

-dale </font>

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SKELLEN:

...but obviously it's a business afterall and like any business money takes precedence.

Actually, the customer takes precedence in any business. </font>

[mystro]

It'd be interesting reading forum comments from way back when... CM:BO was released back in 99, how much tuning did it take to get it to a fine level and were the original buyers patient for the fixes? This new engine is so radically different and IMO, worth the patches just as CMBO was.

[Dirtweasle]

Unfortunately the Great Crash prevents such research, but my recollection is absent the internecine war with the CC fanbots the tone was different. The WOW! factor was pretty high, and sour grapes over getting a plate of broccoli very low. Forgive the mixed macrobiotics.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

My first post after the release of CMSF was “Hype Justified” …. So you can see where I stand . However… even I had a wobble on about the third day using CMSF .

What many have said before is correct. Most dedicated CM fans remember CMBB in its final version as “CM”…. with all its maturity and polish. When I first downloaded CMSF I spent most of my time using the editor and could not have been happier. But after playing one long/big game was concerned by unit behaviour issues. TacAI/path-finding/LOS/LOF… my concern was that these bugs may not be solvable due to RT. RT itself may be the cause, the issue.

I have now both been reassured by Steve that RT is not the cause of the problems and remembered just how many patches CMBO took to get right.

After a brief wobble have now returned to my first conclusion regarding CMSF. CMSF is all I hoped for, better in fact and very much playable right now. Give it two or three patches and two or three months and I am sure the old polish will be back . The complaints will stop.

Greatly looking forward to many more CMX2 wargames…

All the best,

Kip.

[VicKevlar]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

the internecine war with the CC fanbots the tone was different.

It changed after us CCers won!

[Dirtweasle]

Hehe, you may have after all, though you guys got EYSA and GIC we got CMSF.

[pad152]

I remember the CMBO days, there were things people complained about but, the game ran and everything worked. Some people didn't like the 3D and tried to play top-down only view which didn't work very well. 3D and WEGO new back then, was too much of a shock for some wargames.

GI Combat was the second to worst wargame of all time and they had 3 or 4 different releases to get it right but, never could (you can't shine sh*t!). The worst one was that peice of crap released as Computer ASL from Hasbro.

[SlapHappy]

I think it's important when comparing the TOW releas e with the CMSF release to separate "buggy" from "incomplete".

I have both games and my honest opinion is that TOW (for my machine) was and currently is less buggy than CMSF. Most of the problems people seem to have with TOW are simply omissions, not bugs. The largest omission seems to be, in most peoples minds, lack of enterable buildings. This is not a bug, though.

CMSF has true bugs and some of them very annoying. I also, feel, however, that CMSF will get more attention in the future than TOW will. Time will tell.

I appreciate both games for their own particular strengths. I'm hopeful they will both become stronger products in the future.

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by pad152:

I remember the CMBO days, there were things people complained about but, the game ran and everything worked. Some people didn't like the 3D and tried to play top-down only view which didn't work very well. 3D and WEGO new back then, was too much of a shock for some wargames.

GI Combat was the second to worst wargame of all time and they had 3 or 4 different releases to get it right but, never could (you can't shine sh*t!). The worst one was that peice of crap released as Computer ASL from Hasbro.

Yes, ASL from Hasbro sucked balls.......No clearer way to put it......

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Hehe, you may have after all, though you guys got EYSA and GIC we got CMSF.

[FaxisAxis]

You guys, you constructive criticizers who complain about it because you care so much (think you know so much) about the game: give me a break! Half you are uninstalling it from your hard drive or just refusing to play it...until the magic patch comes out to make Quick battles to your liking, Perfect AI and more, prefect vehicle path finding in all situations, WEGO with a little blue bar, a candy cane, right click pop up menu for commands... What else did I miss? (bunch of picky old women in a grocery store) You are all so predictable, you're in every game forum. I know that when the patch comes out you will be here saying: "I wanted you to do this and you didn't" or "its still not working right, nope didn't fix maybe it'll be in the next patch" or you'll say "steve you where going to make this way for us, why why why didn't you do that!" "what do you mean you can't, its easy enough, I know, I write code "I'M a PROGRAMMER." "Is that all that patch does? when or will they ever give us the special control feature we requested?"

Lets face it patches aren't going to transform the game into what you wanted it to be.

Patches can only do so much and for people who want everything just forget it.

Oh, and here's one I've read all over this forum: something along the lines of: that the RT is at the core of the engine, that WEGO is just tacked on for those who still want it and that the AI is scripted to plan and use only real time tactics-dumbed down- and that's why it would never work well in "true" turn-based WEGO. Others complain that it is no better than your typical commercial RT but with a bad control interface, that it is like COH. This does not sound like you have any hope at all for the game turning out better or that you think it has any potential.

[ August 08, 2007, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

[Pandur]

Some people didn't like the 3D and tried to play top-down only view which didn't work very well.

shrugh :eek:

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Pandur:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Some people didn't like the 3D and tried to play top-down only view which didn't work very well.

shrugh :eek:

</font>

[Sergei]

What's with these new fangled computerized games and why didn't CMSF come with a gameboard and a set of dice? :confused:

[Guest]

I tried to punch my counters from the shiny rounded counter sheet and it shattered into a million pieces!

Dagnabbit.