CMSF is still a unique achievement

[panzermartin]

Despite all the complaints (mine included), CMSF is an impressive achievement. I was watching an infantry firefight the other day and it was amazing how realisticaly soldiers ducked, reloaded, got hit, how bullets ricochet , and how the rythm of the shooting was really close to the real thing. If the range permits, you can actually

hide a squad even in open ground, something that wasnt possible before with borg spotting. You can take cover behind vehicles, and you can shoot and scoot with your tanks, on your own, in RealTime!

This must be the first time ever a computer game tries to simulate combat with 1:1 accuracy and realistic ranges and actually succeeding. I'm not fan of the Los/Lof abstractions and the self preservation TacAi but I admit CMSF still feels very real. I bet that with the WW2 slower's pace, more varied terrain and less leathal weaponry the engine's capabilitites will show through and the next title will be an instant classic. Ah, lets not forget QBs ok?

[MikoyanPT]

Agree !

Before this game, wargames were reduced to 2d a la Close Combat, and the the good but outdated CM1.

It was a refreshing evolution.

And modern combat brings new and interesting tactical situations.

[Manx]

Yep, great game. Whether you like the setting of this conflict or not (i don't personally), you've got to give BFC credit for trying something new and different from what's been served up before. They did it with the original CM games and they have tried to push things forward again with CMSF.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well I am happy to join in here as I also like the engine.

The setting is not my favourite… apart from with the guys at BFC I do not think it is anyone’s favourite … but fully debugged will be a great advance eon CMX1.

When the WWII version is released I am sure BFC will re-established their reputation, CMX2 fully de-bugged with the odd new feature will blow away all the critics .

All the best,

Kip.

[Hev]

Again, all complaints aside ( lets face it rts/wargamers are a picky bunch ) I love what BFC have made combat mission. The series is the light in a very dark gaming tunnel and is one of the few games that shows games are not just for kids.

And if we get down to the brass tacks not many people do what bfc do and deep down we all thanks god every night that companys like BFC ( and introversion ) still exist.

[whaco]

.....Wasn't a big fan of CM series before, but I am now. Loads of fun.

[aka_tom_w]

I promise if you think v1.03 is good enough, just OK wait for the v1.04 patch and you will see a very REAL noticable difference in performace in every aspect of the game!

[kevinkins]

I think the setting is good for debuging. Then off to more traditional venues.

Kevin

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

I was watching an infantry firefight the other day and it was amazing how realisticaly soldiers ducked, reloaded, got hit, how bullets ricochet , and how the rythm of the shooting was really close to the real thing.

What game are you playing? It cant be CMSF were my realistic soldier calmly walk across the streets in face of leathal firepower. Or how they get stuck on corners with half the sqd in plain view. Or how you need to expose the whole sqd to get a RPG pot shot on a vehicle instead of just the shooter exposing himself.

[Sig]

Since you (Panzer76) don't play CMSF now (according to what you say in another topic), you could consider stopping for a second or a couple of months to undermine the game at every opportunity you get (to be fair, you're not the only one doing that). Its a bit tireing to see you pop with negative comments everywhere where people have the incredible arrogance to state they enjoy the game. Like I do. Thanks.

Sig

PS: did I say I have no problem with that game and enjoy it? Hm, yes i think I said so.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Sig:

Since you (Panzer76) don't play CMSF now (according to what you say in another topic), you could consider stopping for a second or a couple of months to undermine the game at every opportunity you get (to be fair, you're not the only one doing that).

Hehe, thats a bit of a stretch, Ive been rather passive on the forums for several weeks now. Its just when I pop by and I see someone ask for an opinion or something similar that, I tend to respond.

In this thread, I just couldnt see how our two games differed so much. Or is only positive responses allowed?

Anyways, back on the topic.

[panzermartin]

Panzer76, I'm well aware of the problematic TacAi and I have repeatedly mentioned it in other threads (I hate the building corner thing too). Its not always happening, but when the infantry takes action you get a very realistic result. Its very impressive to watch squads exchanging fire in trenches from 200m away with bullets whistling above, guys getting hit when popping their heads up, others cowering etc. If they managed to sort out the infantry movement, cover and Los/Lof issues the game will be nothing short of a classic. My guess is that this will happen by the time of the WW2 release.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

with the odd new feature

I think we are getting a little tired of the Odd new features it already has.

Love the idea, love the setting, love the new toys. hate the implementation.

[Sirocco]

I wouldn't expect miracles with infantry handling in CMx2. Expect to continue to have gripes about this or that behaviour as was the case with CMx1. The rougher edges will be knocked off it, but there's a limit to what can realistically be achieved.

[B00M$LANG]

Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:

I think the setting is good for debuging. Then off to more traditional venues.

Kevin

Why? Why are you people so afraid of modern tactical combat?

Is it because the pace of it far outstrips your abilities?

Are you uncomfortable with the rapid, ever-changing aspects of the modern battlefield?

Are you upset that your plodding, out-of-date tactics get you killed within minutes on the modern battlefield?

It makes one wonder why you even bother playing wargames if you can't adapt to new challenges. I guess I'd get frustrated too, getting my ass handed to me playing against 14 and 15 year olds who understand the need for quick-thinking and rapid implementation of plans. That must really suck!

[Sirocco]

Perhaps the company level isn't ideal for modern weapons? It might be that the operational level would work better than the tactical. When you combine modern optics and sensors with heavier hitting firepower you lose the subtlety that, for me, makes WW2 much more interesting on the tactical level.

[ September 25, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Sirocco ]

[SgtMuhammed]

It's still METT-T. You have to use basic tactics better now than you did before. Every piece of terrain becomes important, every line of fire must be considered. With WWII stuff a mistake could get you shot at, with modern stuff the same mistake will get you shot. How many times have you ignored an enemy unit in CMx1 because you knew it couldn't hurt you? Now every enemy unit has the potential to kill anything you have. That makes it much more interesting for me.

To each his own though.

[MarkEzra]

I found I REALLY enjoy the modern combat in CM:SF. Far more difficult and deadlier results as the good Sgt notes.

[Rocky Balboa]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

It's still METT-T. You have to use basic tactics better now than you did before. Every piece of terrain becomes important, every line of fire must be considered. With WWII stuff a mistake could get you shot at, with modern stuff the same mistake will get you shot. How many times have you ignored an enemy unit in CMx1 because you knew it couldn't hurt you? Now every enemy unit has the potential to kill anything you have. That makes it much more interesting for me.

To each his own though.

Agreed, I rarely ever used things like covered arcs and area fire in CMx1. But in CMx2 you better make sure you have all suspected enemy locations plotted with covered arcs (and or) area fire and all known locations plotted with at least area fire before you move or your going to need lots of body bags .......

[dalem]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:

I think the setting is good for debuging. Then off to more traditional venues.

Kevin

Why? Why are you people so afraid of modern tactical combat?

Is it because the pace of it far outstrips your abilities?

Are you uncomfortable with the rapid, ever-changing aspects of the modern battlefield?

Are you upset that your plodding, out-of-date tactics get you killed within minutes on the modern battlefield?

It makes one wonder why you even bother playing wargames if you can't adapt to new challenges. I guess I'd get frustrated too, getting my ass handed to me playing against 14 and 15 year olds who understand the need for quick-thinking and rapid implementation of plans. That must really suck! </font>

[Darkmath]

*Sigh*

Why there should be trashing in the few positive threads about CMSF?

Damn, do you think they waste 4 years to get a "broken ,bugged and poorly implemented" program? If even so, so why would they bother releasing patches to improve it? Or maybe they wait next modules to make the game playable? Nonsense.

So, even you have paid for this game and it isn't as good as expected, please respect their work.

There are a ton of thread for complaining here.

[-E]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

It makes one wonder why you even bother playing wargames if you can't adapt to new challenges. I guess I'd get frustrated too, getting my ass handed to me playing against 14 and 15 year olds who understand the need for quick-thinking and rapid implementation of plans. That must really suck!

You're not describing a wargame. You're describing a click-fest (AKA: RTS).

[General_solomon]

I love this game. even with all its flaws. I challange anyone to find another like it in its genre.

I Said this before, keep up the good work. I have not had so much fun in a long while.

The Game editor is outstanding. most supporters would have lost interest without it.

thanks,

General_Solomon

[Chelco]

Originally posted by dalem:

Maybe it's because the core game concept is broken, bugged, and poorly implemented?

-dale [/QB]

The way you talk about "core game concepts" and "implementation" to people with successful, multiple-awarded wargames on their resumes never ceases to be an amusement.

I'm sure you are clueless about it so let me brief you: the guy you are responding with such condenscendence is part of ProSimCo's team. Author of "Raging Tiger" and "The Star and the Crescent", that guy works on military sims for a living.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

*Sigh*

Why there should be trashing in the few positive threads about CMSF?

Damn, do you think they waste 4 years to get a "broken ,bugged and poorly implemented" program? If even so, so why would they bother releasing patches to improve it? Or maybe they wait next modules to make the game playable? Nonsense.

So, even you have paid for this game and it isn't as good as expected, please respect their work.

There are a ton of thread for complaining here.

I was engaging in a discussion. You know, the internet and all that?

-dale