Ritter_85 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I should play CM:SF more to truly "get inside" the game... or should I say.. get somewhat out from "old" cmbb thinking 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athkatla Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I just played Bravo Assault Ba Bado V2, a user made scenario by "The Phantom". It was a great scenario, all infantry battle with the AI on both sides doing remarkably well. I observed my MG Team moving to a waypoint I had set, and when they came to the corner of a building, the gunner laid down with the MG, covering the rest of the team round the corner. Another incident caught my eye when a squad I sent to a roof to lay down fire on a group of the enemy in a trench, came under heavy grenade attack from that group, killing all but two of my Infantry squad. It's good to see your Infantry switching targets and engaging the enemy with grenades too. I think there has been a massive improvement with 1.04, and btw, try this scenario, it's a whole lot of fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yskonyn Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Yes, consider it a medevac of some sort. Performance of 1.04 is improved bigtime. I can now run the game on 1280x1024 with Best/Best, 8x Anisotropic, 2x AA (dont need more on 1280x1024 on a 17" screen) and still get very comfortable frames per second! Rig: P4 3.4Ghz HT, 1GB 400Mhz Dual-Channel RAM, Sapphire ATi Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB (cat 7.6), SB X-Fi Fatality Xtreme Gamer. Windows XP Not everything is up to par yet, as expected. The LOS/LOF problems thread illustrates, but the game has nevertheless become much more enjoyable! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f-bomb Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Originally posted by ieatnoobsforbreakfast: Is it just me or do uncons still not get IEDs in QBs? i was thinking the same thing?? anyone know about this??????????/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsleOfMule Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Well, hell, yes, the framrate is hugely improved. HAven't had the time to play seriously, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 First impression is that 1.04 is big improvement and should have been the state for game release. I even find turn based fun to play now. Good job with 1.04, BFC ! I don't think this game is really up to it, but at least now it's fun to play. [ October 06, 2007, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Well..it lasted about 2 battles. Having platoon of Syrian tanks teleport into battle 200 m from your rear kind of took my "suspension of disbelief" away. Maybe that's more of scenario-issue, but still. But at least "game mechanics" are bit better now. Somehow it reminds me of Steel Panthers II though. Someone aptly described it as "boxing match in phone booth". Kind of getting same feeling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafty Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 So where is the WEGO then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 After playing over two dozen scenarios over the last week, these are my thoughts: I am playing WEGO exclusively on large maps. 1.04 finally brings the feel of CM to CMSF. It still has some issues with TACAI, but 1.04 is probably on par with CMBO after being a month out. I think BFC can finally focus on tweaking TACAI, targeting, etc. with 1.05. I still think the most work has to be done on QBs. I use QBs as filler between user made scenarios. Even with all the work of the QBG, it can still be hit or miss in a QB, especially on force selection. If you have been sitting on the fence on CMSF, this is finally the release version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Withstand Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 You know though mildly disappointed with CMSF performance prior patch 1.04 I've always thought that CMSF holds great potential. Now after patch 1.04 that potential has been realized. Thank you Battlefront. Very impressive support . I have had my bad experiences with SHIV which I've stopped playing altogether after merely weeks and one or two patches. That game did hold promises but wasn't salvageable from the beginning . I'm glad this isn't the case with CMSF . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Yes, CMSF is starting to resemble fun. I actually started reading the imposing manual. Soon after release, I predicted on another forum that version 1.05 would be the keeper. Looks pretty right on, now. I still miss some of the flavor of the older titles like: *actual mortar teams *self-reversing tanks *surrendering troops (Arab armies do a lot of that) *aircraft sounds and shadows *and, maybe above all, appropriate underlying tree terrain when using alt-t 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 That is a good point about reversing AFVs. I have yet to see that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Withstand Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Oh yeah CMSF finally worth to succeed its predecessors. A smart simulation for warfare educated people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I think if 1.04 had been release everyone would have been doing cartwheels and talking about how they'd be playing for years to come. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 As much as I like 1.04, I doubt that. There are still some glaring omissions when looking at CMSF from a CM1 perspective, especially in the QB department. That has killed CMSF for a few people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: As much as I like 1.04, I doubt that. There are still some glaring omissions when looking at CMSF from a CM1 perspective, especially in the QB department. That has killed CMSF for a few people. No I think it's valid, what with BFC's reputation for patching etc. If we started higher up the slope to a great game people would be enjoying it but with niggles. As it is, people think it's fundamentally flawed and will look for fault before fun. I think it's already a good game, and will become a classic when certain things are worked on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mishga Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Give QB's some love and this will be a total corker. People are now looking for all infantry maps where as before the battle cry was "infantry is broked, BFC fix or sumfink!" QBG is currently working on a new volume of maps of which at least half are all infantry medium sized maps, which the community have asked for. I see this as a positive step forward and I do not see CMSF as fundamentally flawed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I think if CMSF had come out less buggy than it did, people like me would have cut considerable slack in the "missing" feature department. Everything just compounded. I still feel stongly that a lot of people expected the features built into and fought for in CM1 would carry over: - A working random QB system out of the box - functional ambushes in WEGO - hit info in tank v tank engagments - Hull Down command - on map mortars - move to contact - detailed unit selection in editor - real LOS tool - right click menu - I'm sure there are others I don't disagree with BFC's philosophy on why any of the above weren't or can't be implemented. There are people that look at that list and say, regardless of the advancement in detail of CMSF, the game is a step backwards. I don't totally disagree with them, but I tend to take a longer term view. So, in the end, even if 1.04 had been the release version, there are enough bugs combined with people's expectations from CM1 to assure that complaining and grumbling would have almost as much as we have seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itael Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Sorry for jumping in so late after the release of the patch, but WOW! 1.04 is a huge improvement. I actually liked the game when it was released, but now I am certain that this game will be a classic. It is already a classic in many aspects and with added TacAI reactions it will reach the same level of amazing battles that unfolded in CM1. Thank you so much BFC, to all of you! You do an amazing job and in my opinion you are really not appreciated enough lately, which is a shame. You really know how to make a wargame. Itai 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I think if CMSF had come out less buggy than it did, people like me would have cut considerable slack in the "missing" feature department. Everything just compounded. Exactly. Originally posted by thewood: I still feel stongly that a lot of people expected the features built into and fought for in CM1 would carry over: - A working random QB system out of the box - functional ambushes in WEGO - hit info in tank v tank engagments - Hull Down command - on map mortars - move to contact - detailed unit selection in editor - real LOS tool - right click menu - I'm sure there are others I don't disagree with BFC's philosophy on why any of the above weren't or can't be implemented. There are people that look at that list and say, regardless of the advancement in detail of CMSF, the game is a step backwards. I don't totally disagree with them, but I tend to take a longer term view. So, in the end, even if 1.04 had been the release version, there are enough bugs combined with people's expectations from CM1 to assure that complaining and grumbling would have almost as much as we have seen. There's issues, yes. But I think the perception of them would have been a lot less had 1.04 been the release version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafty Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Still no WEGO. Why the hard nosed stubborn stance. It was a great feature of the previous game and obviously worth keeping in. It is like having no LOS tool and claiming that you have moved on from that and and in any case it is more realistic to have to adopt a 'soldiers eye' view to assess visibility. If I send back the CD with the cellophane packaging unbroken can I have my money back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Originally posted by shafty: Still no WEGO. Why the hard nosed stubborn stance. It was a great feature of the previous game and obviously worth keeping in. It is like having no LOS tool and claiming that you have moved on from that and and in any case it is more realistic to have to adopt a 'soldiers eye' view to assess visibility. If I send back the CD with the cellophane packaging unbroken can I have my money back? Are you talking about TCP/IP because last time I checked WEGO was in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfie Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Quad core processor and 8800 gts everything runs smoot very happy with performance 1.04 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafty Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 there is an TCP/IP 2 player turn-based option? Where? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Oh you were talking about TCP/IP. That isn't in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.