CMSF - Step back?

[Atago]

First, let me point out that I do enjoy CMSF, it has good things going for it but of course, gripes rule - so I'm going to be griping about the stuff I don't like .

I enjoyed the previous 3 CM's due to their versatility. It was very easy to just pop in and start making maps and battles putting whatever I wanted in them as ridiculous as I wanted (King tigers vs Infantry in a city, Osterwinds vs T-34's - whatever!). With CM I am disappointed as it seems I have only a few units to choose from (as compared to most of the total armor, infantry and weapons in each army covered in WW2). Random battle building is more difficult - Apparently I can't choose exactly what my forces are - instead choosing infantry, armor, heavy infantry, etc - a step backwards IMO over the previous CM's. The lack of variety - another step backwards.

Now I know BF is in this to make money - but if it's $25 to get a few more units - several times (KaChing!) before I get even close to what I had with buying any of the previous versions... my crystal ball doesn't see any more expenditure on CM in my future. I got lured in to getting CMSF expecting it to be a gamewide improvement over CM. IMO - it ain't.

[7thGalaxy]

I am beginning to think that this forum has the highest concentration of moaners in the world. So to balance it out. I think that CM:SF was the best £20 I spent in my life.

[General_solomon]

CMSF may have issues that are being worked out. I've enjoyed this game since the beginning.

I have found no game like it anywhere. you may want to go to the user created maps section to play some great scenarios. I would have stopped playing this game if it was not for the user created battles.

I personally, don't like previous CM games, so may be biased.

I don't think your moaning it may be this time period my not be your cup of tea.

take care,

Gen. solomon

[Meach]

This sort of thread has been around since day one. It adds nothing new that has not already been discussed to death and back again. Not being nasty but this thread is going nowhere.

I did have chocolate donuts for lunch today tho.

[flamingknives]

Atago, what you have to realise is just how massively spoilt you were with CMX1.

Although having said that, you're spoilt with CMX2 as well, but not as much and it's more subtle.

[MikeyD]

The worst enemy of this game seems to be expectations. They're either too high and people get unnecessarily disappointed, or they're too low and the game gets bad-mouthed before it even gets touched. Take it from me, the Marine module is a nice big satisfying module with lots of entertaining stuff. Marine infantry play is not 'subtly' different from Stryker Brigade, its VERY different with very different weapons loads. And for the campaign the scenario designers have had an extra year of practice under their belts.

Its too easy to play the 'But they don't include this!' game. Me, I was gravely disappointed that each soldier didn't come with his own working wristwatch. But I've learned to live with the pain.

[MarkEzra]

I love Panzer General and nothing will ever be able to improve on it's pure simplicity, accuracy and absolute fun!

I love Steel Panthers and nothing will ever get any better than the pure fun, accuracy and absolute simplicity this game offers!

I love CMBO and nothing will ever get any better then the pure simplicity, fun, and absolute accuracy of this game!

I love CM:SF and...

[Jason1980]

I personally feel I got my moneys worth when I purchased CMSF. It's not an expensive game. I have played it for hundreds of hours. When compared to other forms of entertainment, like going to the movies or out to night clubs or amusement parks. It's a bargain.

[medlinke]

Based on everything I've read Marines offers some significant gameplay improvements and expanded unit rosters. I'm not going to sit here and play fanboy about it or anything, but $25 seems in line with what most companies charge for smaller add-ons.

Think about all those Heroes of Might & Magic Addons. Those were between $19.99 & $29.99.

The Sims uses a similar pricing structure with some of their addons, I believe, costing into the $30+ range.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

CM:SF isn't CMBB set in modern-day Syria. If you look at what BFC has said about their philosophy about designing new games, they never intend to have the same variety of units that you had in previous CM games. Instead, they decided to do smaller conflicts, with smaller TO&E, really, really well.

Who knows? That may be why I only play CMSF and not CMx1.

[Battlefront.com]

The funniest thing I've seen repeated over and over again is when we announced (about 4 years ago that is) that there would be more depth and less breadth, people said they would gladly pay $100 to $200 to get the huge variety of stuff we offered in CMx1 games. Then we put the first Module out we get the same people complaining that it's not worth it to them to spend more money for more units. Funny stuff, yes?

If people really don't want to pay for the extra units then they don't have to. But never again are we going to give away several hundred Dollars worth of game content for $45. We spoiled you guys three times and we think that's enough.

As for the lack of "Cherry Picking", that is something that will be reintroduced to the Normandy version and then, by extension, everything else that follows. It won't be quite like what was available in CMx1, but it will allow people to select specific weapons/equipment to purchase in a very straight forward manner.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As for the lack of "Cherry Picking", that is something that will be reintroduced to the Normandy version and then, by extension, everything else that follows. It won't be quite like what was available in CMx1, but it will allow people to select specific weapons/equipment to purchase in a very straight forward manner.

Steve

Why not? Or to put it in other words: WHY NOT!?

[Battlefront.com]

heh... because we didn't like how the first system worked As I've said several times before, I'd rather work at Burger King than go through another couple of years of people bitching and complaining about the science behind our point value system. Since there isn't a Burger King anywhere within 45 minutes drive, I'm putting my efforts into not having to live up to my threat

The new system will be a hybrid between the old (cherry picking) and the new (formations) methods. This will allow people to have forces that are militarily sensible if they want, or completely crazy stuff like in the old days. In other words, getting the best of what both has to offer.

Steve

[thewood]

Will we be able to change out small formations or units without having delete almost everything else?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

heh... because we didn't like how the first system worked As I've said several times before, I'd rather work at Burger King than go through another couple of years of people bitching and complaining about the science behind our point value system. Since there isn't a Burger King anywhere within 45 minutes drive, I'm putting my efforts into not having to live up to my threat

The new system will be a hybrid between the old (cherry picking) and the new (formations) methods. This will allow people to have forces that are militarily sensible if they want, or completely crazy stuff like in the old days. In other words, getting the best of what both has to offer.

Steve

Bitching about the science behind it, bitching about it's absence... you really think us lot are going to behave? Hah! Oh, and you don't have to like how it works. Us customers (and I mean me, really) like it. So that's decided then?

Seriously though, I don't remember the complaints about unit pricing being all that bad aside from some HMC M8 spamming. CMBB and CMAK values were pretty much uncontested IIRC. I can understand why you dodged it for CMSF. Who'd want to assign a value to a Javelin equipped infantry squad? But WW2? I'd say you guys have done the bulk of that balancing act already.

A hybrid system that offers the best of both? You'd have to point out anything good about the CMSF QB system first because I can't think of any. It just doesn't work right. Getting a fun battle out of it is far too rare.

In terms you understand:

Say you own a Aston Martin Vantage and a Trabant. You would not, repeat NOT want to make a hybrid car from the two. You take the Vantage and drive it, and use the Trabant for target practise. The CMSF QB system is that Trabant. Shoot the Trabant Steve, shoot the Trabant. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

The system isn't designed yet, only the principle objectives sketched out and a couple of designs for how the UI can work for various aspects of it.

To answer Elmar's questions (dude, you're up early... or is this the tail end of an all nighter in Amsterdam's hash bars? ) about what is good about the existing system... the ability to have formations that make sense, especially from a C2 standpoint (one of the things we must have). Also, as you say... how the heck can we come up with a single point representation system that accounts for things like Javelins? It was hard enough to do offensive/defensive values in WWII when things were much more rock, paper, scissors. In modern times some units are all of the above, not neatly one or the other.

The primary problem with the current system is the lack of choice based on the equipment. I don't think people would have any problem with buying a platoon of tanks, for example, and selecting it to have 2 Tiger 1E and then buy another platoon of tanks and have it contain 1 PzIV G and 2 PzVI H (one with skirts and the other without). So the formation aspect of CM:SF isn't the problem, it's the inability to cherry pick what is within them that is the issue.

To answer Thewood's question, without being specific since the design isn't done yet...

The concept is you would build battle groups using existing TO&E with rules that ranged from militarily correct to something akin to free form (i.e. utterly ridiculous fantasy). Similarly, the player can either take what he is given, cherry pick from scratch, or modify selected TO&E within certain parameters (for example, you can change 20% of the units given to you, so pick wisely and deal with the rest). Again, this would all be done according to player settings.

The thing is there will not be a point system in this. At least not in the CMx1 way of thinking about it. Elmar may forget the general level of unhappiness with the point system, but we don't What will replace it, exactly, is still under development. There will be a way for the player to understand the values of things and to recognize that if he wants a Tiger he might have to sacrifice two PzIVs to get it, but we are going to ensure that the system has the sort of flexibility under the hood that CMx1 lacked.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Elmar may forget the general level of unhappiness with the point system, but we don't

Wait a minute! I though I was the one living in a country with a reputation for tolerance towards mind altering substances? General level of unhappiness? There was undoubtedly some pissing and moaning, grogs being grogs. But general unhappiness? I rather thought wheedling the best bang for your bucks out of the points allotted was near universally liked. I think you are quite wrong in how (under)appreciated the old QB points system was.

There's this saying you Americans have: "I hate to tell you I told you so but..." Well, I don't. I LOVE to tell anyone that I told them so. I'll claim I told them so even if I didn't. This is me telling you so. And I will take an obnoxious amount of pleasure in reminding you if you screw the pooch.

PS

Irrelevant but fun fact about Dutch anti-smoking laws: The owner of a coffee shop can get a hefty fine for allowing a customer to light up a blunt inside the premises, but only if there is tobacco in the blunt. If you role a pure one, no one can touch you. Dutch law is so awesomely weird it may well turn out to be some sort of performance art.

[thewood]

Steve, I am talking about the scenario design system. If I have to tweak the balance of a scenario, lets by changing out an M1A1 with an M1A2, I have to delete the entire battalion.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh Elmar

I think you are quite wrong in how (under)appreciated the old QB points system was.

Oh, not at all. Now that we don't have it anymore people definitely appreciate it. I'm talking about the attitude at the time when they didn't know that they shouldn't be bitching about it I do agree with you that people mostly bitched during CMBO's days and early CMBB, especially about how Rarity was implemented, and less so after CMBB was out for a while and not at all after CMAK was released. Before then, though, there were long threads about all the other ways that would be much better than the way we had it because the way we had it was stuffed

There's this saying you Americans have: "I hate to tell you I told you so but..." Well, I don't. I LOVE to tell anyone that I told them so. I'll claim I told them so even if I didn't. This is me telling you so. And I will take an obnoxious amount of pleasure in reminding you if you screw the pooch.

Don't worry... I have plans for you that will "fix your wagon", as we say in English

Thewood,

Steve, I am talking about the scenario design system. If I have to tweak the balance of a scenario, lets by changing out an M1A1 with an M1A2, I have to delete the entire battalion.

Ah! Not a problem. The purchase system for QBs will be the same, though perhaps modified a wee bit, for the Editor as well. The mechanics of selecting specific hardware found in CM:SF is being completely trashed. Honestly, it was only intended as a temporary solution anyway. Sometimes we have to do things a certain way because we need the functionality and yet can't afford the time to do it in an optimal way. That's one reason why people can spot so many differences between CMBO and CMBB, for example. Many of the things we did for CMBB were intended for CMBO, but after 3 years of work we simply ran out of time to fully flesh out everything. Actually, we never got it fully fleshed out... which is why we dropped it and went to CMx2. Too much work for too little improvement due to the code's limitations.

Steve

[thewood]

Just to make sure I understand; this new OOB system won't be in CMSF, ever. But it will be in CMSF2 or what it ends up being calle.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think it will be in CMx2: Normandy

[Atago]

The funniest thing I've seen repeated over and over again is when we announced (about 4 years ago that is) that there would be more depth and less breadth, people said they would gladly pay $100 to $200 to get the huge variety of stuff we offered in CMx1 games. Then we put the first Module out we get the same people complaining that it's not worth it to them to spend more money for more units. Funny stuff, yes?

If people really don't want to pay for the extra units then they don't have to. But never again are we going to give away several hundred Dollars worth of game content for $45. We spoiled you guys three times and we think that's enough.

As for the lack of "Cherry Picking", that is something that will be reintroduced to the Normandy version and then, by extension, everything else that follows. It won't be quite like what was available in CMx1, but it will allow people to select specific weapons/equipment to purchase in a very straight forward manner.

Steve

Fair enough, and thanks for the response. For those bitching about my bitching - sorry, but that's how feedback is done and potential improvements may be made. They had a good reason for doing the modular game it seems, and yes - it's to make money but that's ok as without the green stuff (or multicolored if you're not in the US) there'd only be shareware.

I'd just be much happier if I could pick my exact forces then have the AI pick so I'd not know what I was up against. If that arrives in the Normandy module great, but having it retrofitted would sure make me happy. It sounds like this is being covered - excellent!

I am rather curious to see how the T-90's are - particularly after spending the last hour or so driving around in the T-72 demo and blowing up a few targets.

[theFightingSeabee]

Atago, I've explained our side of things to Steve before. We love this game and know it's full of potential. That is why we spend our precious time to come here and offer up our 2 cents worth. I've made tons of suggestions, not whining (in my mind), just suggestions to change or add things that would make things better. All we want to do is to add polish to this gem of a game.

[Atago]

Atago, I've explained our side of things to Steve before. We love this game and know it's full of potential. That is why we spend our precious time to come here and offer up our 2 cents worth. I've made tons of suggestions, not whining (in my mind), just suggestions to change or add things that would make things better. All we want to do is to add polish to this gem of a game.

Exactly. If I didn't like it, and didn't care I wouldn't waste time getting registered for the forum and making comments at all.

If they want to call in whining that's ok - sometimes whining works (as my nephew has learned).

[Lethaface]

hehe. i thought i had the only nephew who could wine with effect.

My wining has been met with proper action, my parents knew how to 'cherry pick'