yapma Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I played CMSF over the weekend after a several month hiatus. Here are my impressions: 1. It's actually a really good game. I still prefer CMx1, but that is because I prefer turn based games. CMSF is basically RT, with turn based grafted on. I friggin hate not being able to fast forward when nothing is happening. 2. One minute turns are too long for WEGO. They seemed right for WW2, but the modern setting is too deadly, and too much happens in a minute. 3. There is a dearth of good company sized scenarios. I suspect this is because scenarios are harder to make. QB, as implemented, essentially blows. I suspect, but don't know, that the current lack of force selection in QB has a lot more with the work involved in assigning point values than it does with any professed paternalistic concerns about cherry picking. Anyway, I am glad to see other people are enjoying CMSF, and I will probably still play it from time to time, just not nearly as often as I played CMx1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leakyD Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Gotta give them time.... The way I see it is: CM:SF is, what CM:BO was: The Beginning CM:BB came out, and it cranked the engine up a notch. Plus, they gave us Eastern Front tactical combat. What WWII nutball didn't have a orgasm over that! CM:AK came out, and we had a pretty good WWII sim, but hit the ceiling in terms of the what the engine was capable of. Plenty of scenarios came out from the community that put us back into Normandy and allowed us to play the original CM scenarios with a better engine and graphics. It was great to see the CMx1 engine come around full circle. CM:SF is just the beginning with the new engine. I am confident BFC will fine tune things (ahem: you are reading, this right BFC?...) accordingly, and we will be rewarded with better experiences as time moves on. I'd like to see fast fwd, shorter turns (why can't we toggle this stuff on/off?), and better QB (not to mention a more capable AI) as well, but c'mon: put CM:BO next to CM:SF and I think you can see significant progress. Also, remember: CM:BO didn't get "final" until it hit v1.12. CM:SF has some room to grow still. In 5+ yrs, when quad core CPU's are "old tech" we're gonna be in a whole different CM. We can look back with nostalgia at how CM:SF started, and reminisce about the CMx2 engine and how much fun it was. Finally, if/when BFC decides to use the CMx2 engine in WWII ETO, we will be in for a treat. All the data is there. Let them iron out the CMx2 engine kinks in the modern world, and give the Hive-Mind (still called Charles in Terran language, yes?) something new to work with for a change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 These are pretty fair comments, I to would like to see different options for turn length 1 minute can be an excrusiatingly long time while you watch your troops crawl into an ambush or a Stryker MGS keeps using up all it's ammo when you only wanted it to fire a couple of shots. As for QB's they are to be reworked so I believe, I just hope they remember to let us adjust the mission length, 25mins is too much of rush to try and take a village in CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marneus Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 It's the prospect of tiles to make semi-random maps I look forward too. If that is still on the drawing board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 As for QB's they are to be reworked so I believe, Really hope so. Its tough if you want to play balanced red on red MEs. 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.