Does 1.11 "Fix" CMSF?

[sage2]

I played CMSF when it first came out, but quit in frustration.

I played again, in February / March with 1.07 or 08 (can't remember), and found it better, but still problematic. What "did it in" for me, was not getting credit for capturing ground, even after having marched infantry all over it. There wasn't any feedback to tell me whether I had captured the ground, or how it was computed or so forth. The game was marginally better, but still felt clunky.

How is now with 1.10/1.11? I ask because my connection is rreeeeaaaallllly slow, and downloading a few hundred megs is quite a project.

Sage

(in Mosul, yeah I know it's a little weird wanting to play CMSF when actually getting rocketed, but hey, adds to the imersion when you can play in your kevlar, right?)

[dan/california]

It is certainly the best that it has been.

Regarding your specific complaint there are several types of terrain objectives. Some you just have to touch, some you have to eliminate the enemy from and touch, and some you have to hold at the end of the scenario. The frustration you were experiencing comes from a scenario designer not explaining the objective properly. It was probably specific to that scenario, so don't let it get you down on the game too much.

The game as a whole is really quite good now, all the SERIOUS irritations have been dealt with. In regard to the endless discussion about the spotting model fidelity an so on, it sounds like you are somewhat excessively well placed to give an expert opinion. Stay safe, and as sane as they will let you.

[MikeyD]

Hah! I do have to chuckle at the thought of abandoning the game due to point credits at the end-of-game screen.

If the last CMSF you touched was v1.07 then you really REALLY need an upgrade. I don't know about points totals at the end, but the play experience itself had progressed by leaps and bounds.

Could you get a stateside buddy to burn a CD of the patches and mail them to you? That would save having to stare at the download progress bar for hours at a stretch.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm going to get slagged off for asking, but why are you here Adam?

If it's really all so terrible can't you just move on? You've been quite unhappy from day one. Understandable then. But you are still as angry now as when you were playing with 1.01.

Frankly, the list of things that you mention is mostly pretty minor stuff. Yet it seems to ruin your game entirely. Try to mellow out a little, I believe you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.

[Cpl Steiner]

Sage2,

Version 1.11 is vastly superior to the version you have now (1.07/8 you said).

One of the main complaints when the game first came out was that troops didn't react correctly to enemy contact. They would fail to return fire in the middle of a move order, and would be mowed down trying to reach the corners of rooms, sometimes moving right past enemy soldiers firing at them at point blank range.

All that has gone now. Troops realistically stop to engage targets of opportunity and take evasive action when out-gunned. They just seem to act so much more sensibly now. I remember Michael Dorosh used to ask what was the point of 1 to 1 representation of a squad if each individual soldier didn't move and act like a in individual. Well I for one think they do seem to act more independently now. Admittedly not perfectly, but for a company vs. company scale wargame, pretty damn close. If Dorosh was still around I think even he'd have to admit this is so.

As for the objectives problem, I find most battles now result in the enemy surrendering en mass, resulting in all objectives being won even if not occupied - which to my mind is more realistic than every last Syrian fighting for the last patch of ground.

[abneo3sierra]

I have had my first real opportunity since spring to play this game. In spring, my opinion was that it showed promise, but needed work. I am happy to say it has been greatly improved.

As a side note, hello to many of you I remember from my days last winter recuperating.

[c3k]

sage2,

Go for v1.11. It (and v1.10 before it) makes CMSF a VERY good game. Perfect? Heck no. But very, very good. Besides, what else are you going to do in Mosul while you're waiting for the download? I doubt there's a hot date you'll be missing.

Thanks for your service! Stay safe.

Regards,

Ken

[dan/california]

I will cheerfully burn it and mail it to you if you email me the info. I post it on the open forum though.

[dan/california]

Adam is being excessively negative by the way. Even if some of his specific points have some validity. They aren't game breakers the way vehicle path finding was for a long time.

[MarkEzra]

I've been waiting for someone like C3K to answer your question. If I say it's worth the effort to DL...well...let's face it I'm a FanBoi... so me saying get it got no weight. But if C3K gives you the nod...you can take that one to the bank. So stay safe and get the patch.

[panzermartin]

Get 1.11. Vast difference compared to pre 1.10. Infantry is smart, responsive and fast and now seeks cover intelligently. The action spot highlighting helps a lot to understand positioning of troops. After getting the marines 1.10 my gaming time has skyrocketed and I'm having a blast playing online which at last is fixed and smooth now.

[Battlefront.com]

Sage2,

I think the best thing to do is get a CD burned and sent over to you. The list of improvements is huge, but one in v1.11 in particular addresses some victory point calculations that I think might have caused you some trouble before (though I agree much of it is likely due to scenario designer issues).

As for Adam's latest tirade... everybody's entitled to their opinions, even Adam. Of course he blurs the lines between opinion and factually BS statements, but that's normal for him. He also forgets that his viewpoints have been challenged and successfully shown to be overblown statements which can't be backed up. Others are legit issues, but not necessarily all that important or as prevalent as he claims. It's been like this with him since the beginning. Remember, this is the same guy that said long ago that CM:SF was a waste of time because it didn't simulate 100mm AT and flak guns. He didn't find many supporters in the ensuing discussions that agreed with him (though everybody, including me, wouldn't mind having them in the game). Every so often he appears to try and be objective, then just goes back to being unreasonably negative.

What none of us can figure out is how he can be so flamingly negative after all this time and yet still show up here so regularly. Everybody has their pet peeves, but sometimes people let them get the best of them. Others go to the point of unhealthy obsession.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[cmfan]

... to derail a derail...

I'm an old CM1 player. I have all three of the earlier titles. When CMSF came out I was really excited about it but after reading reviews and playing around with the demo I was sorely disappointed . The game was not playable in my opinion; well, at least it seemed to be a step back from what I had come to expect from a CM title (yes, I know BF said it was not a sequel, etc.)

So I put off buying the game until 1.10 when I heard through word of mouth and read posts on the boards that described the latest changes and improvements. I decided to give it a whirl and was not disappointed. The latest patch (1.11) makes the game even more playable in my opinion and I would be willing to highly recommend it now to anyone that asked me.

Yes the game still has some issues. For example I agree with Adam that infantry squads don't move in any formations to speak off (apart from a linear stack) and sometimes clump together at the worst time. I also don't get the absence of foxholes and trenches with overhead cover. Nevertheless, despite these limitations the game is extremely playable and enjoyable at this point.

[c3k]

sage2,

If you want a CD burned and mailed, I'll do it for you. Either post your APO or email me. Let me know if you want anything else on it (mods, downloads, etc.). Of course, I have no idea how long it'd take to get to you!

Regards,

Ken

[Cpl Steiner]

On the trench overhead cover issue, I bet a simple solution for the "realists" would be to refrain completely from using linear air-burst artillery fire missions against trench lines. Just tell yourself it's got overhead cover so you have to treat it as a "general" or "armor" target instead. The AI won't be under any such restriction but you could count on one hand the number of scenarios for which this would be a problem.

Maybe you shouldn't have to do this but I reckon it would be a pretty workable solution.

[Drusus]

In my opinion 1.10 was good and 1.11 is even better. Get it.

[sage2]

Wow, thanks all for so much feedback and the many offers to burn and send me CDs. It looks like my connection stayed up long enough to download 1.10 and 1.11 over the last 24 hours (hopefully they didn't get corrupted or something), so I'll give them a whirl. I appreciate everyone taking the time to give me both positive and negative feedback.

My point of comparison has always been CM 1 and 2 -- 1.07 definitely wasn't as good, but it sounds like these might be. Looking forward to trying them this evening.

If the patch downloads get any bigger, you can bet I'll take some of you up on those offers to download and burn for me.

Best,

Sage

[stikkypixie]

Wow, thanks all for so much feedback and the many offers to burn and send me CDs. It looks like my connection stayed up long enough to download 1.10 and 1.11 over the last 24 hours (hopefully they didn't get corrupted or something), so I'll give them a whirl. I appreciate everyone taking the time to give me both positive and negative feedback.

My point of comparison has always been CM 1 and 2 -- 1.07 definitely wasn't as good, but it sounds like these might be. Looking forward to trying them this evening.

If the patch downloads get any bigger, you can bet I'll take some of you up on those offers to download and burn for me.

Best,

Sage

You could also look for a cheap internet cafe with a good connection, and download it onto a flash drive.

[sage2]

Edit: Ah ha! Found my original email from like forever ago,which had my key. Yay.

Oh the irony... I very carefully typed all the CD keys for all my games. Except, apparently CMSF. Hopefully my wife can I find it.

Ghent, I might try an internet cafe, except that the locals look at you funny when you get out of an MRAP to go check your email. :=)

Sage

[sfhand]

Never fear, in addition to giving you "infractions" for rules that they don't bother to post, battlefront can hook you up with your elicense number. Good luck in the coming New Year!

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Was the thread about the game or were we discussing me? I didn't notice the "About Adam" thread title so forgive me if I'm in the wrong thread.

Well, your posting history is relevant to rebutting your post, which included a bunch of speculation about our motivations as well. So, you obviously wanted attention and you got it.

If any of the points I mentioned are invalid, I'm willing to discuss them specifically, just name one.

Well, pretty much all of them are. And you're ability to rationally discuss things isn't all that good. Like when you said that CM:Normandy would be a joke if it didn't have spotable trenches. When it was quickly pointed out that CMBO didn't have trenches at all, you kinda lost interest in pursuing your original point because apparently even you realized you were off the mark. CMBB/AK trenches also didn't support overhead protection, which is another one of your molehill mountain peeves.

As for your "list" of things, almost everything you just mentioned was as true for CMx1 as it is for CMx2. It's also even more true for most wargames out there now and in the past. So if you're standards are so impossibly high, and you're not willing to put things in perspective and see the forest through the trees, then what possible value do you bring to a discussion here?

On the other hand, I have three people discussing my person while I'm out studying, presumably out of sensitivity to criticism. Who has an obsession? lol.

The point is why are you here at all? I watched 15 minutes of a crappy movie last night and turned it off. I didn't go onto some website which discussed the movie and start posting about how bad it was. Hell, I didn't even bother wasting my time watching the thing. You've spent more than a few minutes of your life here and that's time you won't get back. So yeah, one has to wonder what your point of being here is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sage2,

Glad you got the patch before your connection crapped out! You shouldn't need to do anything with keys unless you're just done a full install on a new computer. Since it looks like you have your key, then everything is OK anyway

I'm curious what you think of the changes between v1.07 and v1.11.

Steve

[hoolaman]

No it's not. The infantry is still broke, they don't use cover or move properly (ducks crossing a road half the time, or blind men in an alley running from angry tigers.)

Accuracy of fire is still off, probably deliberately, to make up for the crappy infantry movement and formations.

Cover is a innefectual, and where it exists, the men don't use it half the time. Craters are not foxholes, men cannot skulk in them properly. The slits that defenders start with are very marginally better than just laying in open ground to begin with.

Vehicle spotting is still strange, especially when it comes to red unbuttoned vehicles with cover arcs spotting blue vehicles.

Trenches still are the same as always. Airburst of any caliber will clear them.

There is virtually no multiplayer fog of war. All cover is visible for all sides at any difficulty setting. Muzzle burst graphics are visible for all sides at any distance whatsoever.

Vehicles still dance around vegetation like it's an anti-tank ditch.

It's not that BFC doesn't know about these things; The problem is that that they aren't a priority at all. The priority is getting new vehicle expansions out.

I agree with your list of issues as it stands. Things like FOW, the way small arms fire spreads and hits targets, and low level infantry behaviour are still problems for me from time to time.

I think you'll find people's reaction to your post came from you responding to "It's quite good" with "no it's not". That is very much a subjective thing and most people can acknowledge the problems you mention and still think the game is good.

As for BFCs motivation, dozens of things mentioned on this forum have been addressed even just in 1.11 often with little public comment, so don't be surprised if some of the things you mentioned are tidied up in the future too.