Does 1.11 "Fix" CMSF?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Dietrich]

Does 1.11 "Fix" CMSF?

Yes.

It may not fix it comprehensively or finally, but if by "fix" one means "make distinct and worthwhile improvements to", then I would say it does.

Steve, you are the ONLY developer who I have ever come across who gets on their own forum and publicly slanders someone's person....

*sigh* If it's in print, it's called libel. =P

On a forum for a mod for a totally different game (not going to name any names; suffice it to say it was no game made by Battlefront), an exceedingly knowledgeable and well-read but often not very tactful forum-member said others at the forum had expressed Nazi-sympathetic views. He got flamed in response, but then he proceeded to post screenshots of the accused persons' posts in which they basically said "if things were they were the Nazis wanted them to be, I wouldn't mind".

Just a friendly word of warning to anyone who may feel inclined to spout dogmatic assertions and then doggedly assert they never said any such thing.

[flamingknives]

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.)

That's an opinion.

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

That's an opinion.

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.

An opinion again

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

An opinion

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

That may be fact, but whether it breaks the game is an opinion

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.

An exaggeration in the first instance. Whether the second two are game breakers is a matter of opinion.

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

I haven't noticed this. What do you think should be the required behaviour?

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.

Opinion and supposition.

The whole series of points is really all opinion with little reasoning compounded with a thoroughly boorish tone. My take on this is that it is basically trolling. You aim to get a reaction out of Steve then look all innocent.

If the game upsets you so much, don't bother with it any more.

[sage2]

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

Hi Steve,

Thank you for asking.

Combat results in 1.07 feel much more 'organic' than 1.11. That's a good thing. It's definitely a big improvement. I actually had fun playing the first mission in the original campaign, and am looking forward to playing the second. The coolest moment was when one of my M1A1s killed a second T54 through the carcass of the 1st T54 that came around the corner. I watched the video, and sure enough that APDS round went right through.

My general sense is that CM2x is now almost as good at CM1 as a game. Yes, it has many many many more features, and a much higher fidelity modeling for many things, but that doesn't necessarily make for a better game. The return of the blue bar gives me a fuzzy warm feeling. I use the ability to skip quickly through turns both at the end and beginning of games. I spend much less time feeling like I'm waiting for the computer, even if net time playing is unchanged.

Here are somethings I've noticed:

* Dust hang time is way, way, way too low. The terrain in Mosul is probably pretty similar to Syria (we're pretty dang close). Arid, rocky, low scrub. The dust here is astoundingly fine. When tracked or wheeled vehicles go by the dust that is kicked up hangs in the air for hours, and very, very slowly disperses. It has to be seen to be believed. It is nothing like any thing I have ever seen in the American West. It's also quite different from central Iraq (although I wasn't there very long). IMO, the dust that is generated in the game shouldn't be quite as thick, but it should last much longer. I know that there's a processor hit for this, but if it's possible it should be done. For a tactical game like this, getting your vehicles 'out of the plume' and into fresh air is a reasonable consideration. Additionally, the dust of moving vehicles will aid enemy spoting.

* MRAPs are everywhere. I'm not sure they'd be a ton of use in a 'hot' conflict like portrayed at the beginning of the Syrian campaign, but they are here to stay. Despite their tippy tendencies, extremly high profile and so forth, the Army has spent a bajilllion dollars on them, and I would expect to see them only be developed more in the future. It would be nice to see 1 or 2 flavors modeled in game for scenario designs to use in LIC scenarios.

* Small arms lethality against troops in cover still seems too high. I had this same genearal concern in the CM games, but it seems even more pronounced here. I don't have any hard data to back this one up. Small arms fixes your enemy (maybe). Explosives or close contact kill him.

Lots of people have complained about the spotting model. It seems about right, or even a bit too generous, to me for troops in cover concealment. On the flipside, it seems a bit too hard to spot troops in the open. No analytical data to back this up at all.

Best,

Sage

[Taki]

Dont know if im doing good to my Reputation here, but in some point i agree with Adam.

Red Vehicles with Cover Arc do some real weird spotting (or no spotting). I got lots of explenations on this. Got asked for technical data (that i really dont have) but human sense still tells me that its wrong.

On the other hand i would like to appriciate that US Units should be able to sense some Ambush Positions with Target Arc after watching it for some time. Right now its more like:

"Us Boys sneak/Run/ walk out in the Open and onto next Buildings. Waiting to draw fire onto them and then react"

Those Mulitbillioni Dollar Army should be more cabable in spotting hidden Enemys. And Green conscripts shouldnt have icecold nervs waiting exactly for the right moment to get their heads up and shoot the crap out of them.

Other things have gone better and better and 1.11 is the best you can get. Blue Bar and routing Units are the best Features the Game has gotten so far.

If someone would ask me to buy it i would say:

"If you like playing it Singleplayer on some Missions (on Blue side) or start a good Campaign, buy it. For MP it still needs some improvments to be really Fun".

Lets hope on the Normandy Title. But i had some (2-3) good MP battles so far. But another (10 or so) that lacked the Immersion and "allright" feeling that cmX1 gave me.

Anyway, its a good Game. Just started to play the Campaign again. Plays better from Patch to Patch.

[flamingknives]

I don't see any problem agreeing with some of the points that Adam raises, but going out into lands of wild hyperbole and stating opinion as fact is where it gets contentious.

CM has always had a problem with spotting troops in a static position. Once put in place, troops in CM do not move, so are hard to spot, while in real life there is a low level movement - ducking up and down in windows, changing position to ease a cramped leg or whatever. Coding nightmare though.

[sage2]

Oh one other thing -- I don't think you'll even see uparmored 1114s used on the battlefield again. Maybe 1151s, but definitely not thin skin 1114s.

[Thomm]

About spotting: when I played in-door paint ball recently, I was amazed to see nothing moving at the enemy side for considerable time-spans, even though I knew that there had to be six individuals spread out over as few as five (generic) obstacles. The term "empty battlefield" got a stronger meaning!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Steve you're just plain making stuff up now. I never said anything about 100mm atgs, or Normandy being a joke.[= I think you're confusing me with someone else (Redwolf?).

Well, I've never been one to insist that my memory is always spot on, so if you didn't say anything about the 100mm ATGs then I'll retract that. But I don't believe I was wrong to point out that you have done some throwing of babies out with bathwater before. For example you said this in a thread that was a continuation of one about trenches:s

"It's just getting ridiculous imo. No matter what, if players can see distant trenches, the multiplayer game is pooched."

Yes, you're expressing an opinion and in-and-of-itself I have no issue with that. It's the baggage you bundle it with that keeps coming up as a problem. Specifically, a bad attitude which colors what could otherwise be simple opinions.

The only thing you have said here that is accurate is that I thought AAA was an important part of the Syrian ground arsenal. The rest is just personal attacks and spin with really obvious motivating factors. Are you going to start banning people who post totally valid criticisms?

No, and who said anything about banning you? We've never banned anybody from posting valid criticism. We only ban people that can't do so in a positive way. You are, unfortunately, too often on that thin line between the two. And I grow tired of investing energy in trying to keep your bad attitude in check.

Steve aka "Battlefront.com", you are the ONLY developer who I have ever come across who gets on their own forum and publicly slanders someone's person and makes a concerted attempt to discredit them as a sane individual as a reaction to posting critical comments about their game. Suggesting I have mental health issues is also way out of line. Totally unprofessional and way below your years. I really don't appreciate it at all, very much uncalled for behaviour.

We've done this dance too many times Adam. In fact, here's what you said the last time:

"I have given up on it personally, and I'm a lot happier just playing CMx1. I like CMSF's visuals and sounds better but the gameplay is still years off, and that's what counts to me. I guess you can't please both the hardcore audience and the casual gamers with this engine, trade-offs were required apparently (I still have no idea why) and they picked the other group."

And yet here you still are... investing time and energy into something you have repeatedly said over many months isn't worth it. You have shown, time and time again, a level of unhappiness in both the game system and how we have gone about improving it. Your opinion of our capabilities, mine in particular, is extremely low. You have convinced yourself we don't listen to reasonable criticism, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

So, to repeat the question Elmar asked you on Page 1 of this thread, why are you here? Other than to pick fights, I don't know what it could possibly be.

Since this isn't a new thing for you, I'll save myself some time and re-post the advice I gave you the last time you throw all perspective out the window:

"The more "fringe" a customer is, the less likely he is going to be happy with my handling of this consensus building and the product that comes from it. At some point we have to just agree to go our separate ways because our differences are irreconcilable. There are a number of people that can't accept this fact and instead of moving on spend more time dwelling on the fact that they're now on the outside looking in. I don't understand this at all since our time on this Earth is limited and bitching and complaining about a game that will obviously never meet expectations seems to be a terrible waste of time. Which is exactly why I suggested to you, Adam, that you figure out if you think CMx2 will every be something you will enjoy and move on if you conclude it don't think it will. That's good, sound advice that comes from good intentions, not malice."

I would appreciate it you stopped that right now and desisted from personal remarks.

Follow your own advice before you start preaching to me. From your initial post in this thread:

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

...

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."

This is coming on top of a history of such outbursts from you. And I'm not alone in seeing this, as the first response to your post indicates. Still not sure what I'm talking about? Here's a quote from you the last time we went through this:

"Is there a chance that critical feedback will help? I don't know anymore. Do I play CMSF? No, I test things with it. I don't think it's playable as is for my tastes. It's not a love-hate back and forth. It's called "A balanced perspective", something you constantly clamour about wishing wargamers had more of, but it's funny how someone that can see the good in the game gets this emotional response from you every time they bring up a critical point. Really, I wonder if you want it at all. You really come across as only happy with people who have nothing bad to say about CMSF, whether that is rational or not. Good luck with that."

Whatever your frustrations in life may be, there is only so long that I'm willing to let you take them out on Battlefront, CM:SF, and me personally. This is not a threat, it is a plea for you to sort things out and make a decision, once and for all, if you see any point in being a part of this forum. If you don't see a point, then kindly remove yourself from the discussion voluntarily.

Steve

Here is the thread that contains most of the quotes from above: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84750&highlight=trench&page=13

[Battlefront.com]

Taki,

Flamingknives put it best:

I don't see any problem agreeing with some of the points that Adam raises, but going out into lands of wild hyperbole and stating opinion as fact is where it gets contentious.

Exactly. There probably isn't a single thing in any CM game that we've ever made that couldn't use a bit of improvement, therefore every feature in every CM game is "imperfect". There are things arguably missing from each of our games which means that they are all "incomplete". There are also tons of things which are more-or-less based on interpretation of different sources of data, so very little represented can be said to be "empirical". On top of this we have always had limitations imposed on our designs from hardware, software, coding time, or other things outside of our practical control.

The degree a customer can accept the imperfections of our products is directly proportional to the customer's ability to enjoy it. The middle range of customers, the ones who recognize the flaws and still enjoy the game, are the majority and are generally the most well balanced. Those who are on either extreme are out of balance. However, the ones who think that CM games are like the second coming of Christ, as out of balance as their opinions might be, are happy. The ones who dwell on the things which aren't perfect to the complete detriment of enjoyment appear to be miserable and even resentful. That is not healthy nor productive.

Steve

[Meach]

They give me some entertainment. To me pondering if they are perfect or not is going too far. A game's a game for ah that. Maybe I am easily amused but I put quirks down to the God of War playing tricks on his pawns. To expect perfection is akin to waiting to win the lottery and pinning your hopes on it.

[Battlefront.com]

* Dust hang time is way, way, way too low. The terrain in Mosul is probably pretty similar to Syria (we're pretty dang close). Arid, rocky, low scrub. The dust here is astoundingly fine. When tracked or wheeled vehicles go by the dust that is kicked up hangs in the air for hours, and very, very slowly disperses.

An interesting observation! I do know that there are several different types of sand in the region, each with their own properties. I've seen the stuff you deal with described as talcum powder, which from my understanding isn't typical within the majority of Syria's arid areas.

I'm curious... what do other OIF vets think about the hang time of the dust in CM:SF? Any vets here from the Syrian border areas who can comment? We can make it stay around longer by default, with wind knocking it down proportionally (wind already simulates accelerated dispersal).

* MRAPs are everywhere. I'm not sure they'd be a ton of use in a 'hot' conflict like portrayed at the beginning of the Syrian campaign, but they are here to stay.

Yeah, we've had a lot of discussions about this and other similar things. First, CM:SF came out as MRAPs were just starting to be fielded so that's the primary reason they aren't included. They haven't been added subsequently because we purposeful chose to focus the game's setting on the initial conventional engagement and not follow up occupation duties. The latter would require a huge amount of additional work to do correctly. Therefore, we've concluded (thus far) that MRAPs are out of CM:SF's scope.

* Small arms lethality against troops in cover still seems too high. I had this same genearal concern in the CM games, but it seems even more pronounced here. I don't have any hard data to back this one up. Small arms fixes your enemy (maybe). Explosives or close contact kill him.

Yeah, this is always a tough one. We've had many discussions about this for years. The thing is there are some game elements which increase casualties. This poses some problems for us. If we optimize the lethality for these "game" conditions (mostly having to do with a single brain controlling an entire side's forces) then we get into situations where individual circumstances start to feel unrealistic.

We think Relative Spotting and a the more refined simulation of individuals and weapons has helped, however, we agree it's still too high. The problem is we don't really think there's a viable way to get things more inline with reality since CM is inherently an artificial construct controlled by someone who couldn't/wouldn't conduct ops in the same way in real life if he was in charge.

Lots of people have complained about the spotting model. It seems about right, or even a bit too generous, to me for troops in cover concealment. On the flipside, it seems a bit too hard to spot troops in the open. No analytical data to back this up at all.

I know URC believes the data is out there in a useable format for us, however we've not come upon anything that is much better than doing "guesswork". Therefore, it could be that more tweaking is necessary. However, we don't have any analytical data to back that up either

Steve

[MikeyD]

I remember waaaay back before even the CMSF Beta was underway some old CMx1 grogs on this board would merrily entertain themselves constructing these impossible cloud-castle combat sims in their heads. Games that would've taxed the combined resources of the DoD to produce, would've taken supercomputers to run, and sounded pretty much imposible for anyone to play, to boot. I recall getting a sinking feeling - "Uh, oh. No matter what the final game looks like nothing is going to please these people". and I was right. For some, the least blade of grass out of place continues to be hailed as the game's 'fundamental flaw' or its 'achilles heel'. A couple of the crazier ones are haunting other gamer boards to this day trying to engineer BFC's financial collapse! Geez guys, lighten up. it's just a frickin' game - it's supposed to be FUN!

[sage2]

An interesting observation! I do know that there are several different types of sand in the region, each with their own properties. I've seen the stuff you deal with described as talcum powder, which from my understanding isn't typical within the majority of Syria's arid areas.

I'm curious... what do other OIF vets think about the hang time of the dust in CM:SF? Any vets here from the Syrian border areas who can comment? We can make it stay around longer by default, with wind knocking it down proportionally (wind already simulates accelerated dispersal).

... stuff cut...

I know URC believes the data is out there in a useable format for us, however we've not come upon anything that is much better than doing "guesswork". Therefore, it could be that more tweaking is necessary. However, we don't have any analytical data to back that up either

Steve

Hey Steve, thanks for the long response!

I would also be interested in hearing what other vets say about the dust. We don't have (or at least I have seen) the "pools" of "angel dust" that you see in other areas in Iraq around here / Mosul. Just this super super super fine dust that seems to have an almost neutral buyoncy in the air. You might model something like a 10 minute hang time and slow dispersion, with it finally settling after about 10 minutes. This is probably quite conservatitve, from what I've seen (assuming Syria is similar to Northern Iraq), but would capture the feel. I remember reading about the ancient armies in this area (Xenophon? can't remember the source) talking about the dust hanging in the air for two days after the army had passed. That's not an exageration if there's no wind.

One thing that impacts the spotting, IMO, is the lack of COBs and the need to positively ID before shooting. (COBs = Civilians on Battlefield). Playing the 2nd campaign mission with the SVBIED taxis brought this to the fore. One of those SVBIED taxies was identified at about 600m as an SVBIED. In reality, it would only be able to be id'd as hostile based on its action and response to an EOF as it neared coalition forces. Likewise, seeing people moving around windows in a building isn't "hostile intent".

I would imagine that modeling COBs and EOF procedures would be a ton of work, but I believe it actually has relevancy to the high intensity conflict modeled here. Not so much so for the upcoming "Normandy" game, however.

One possible way to address is for scenario designers to place units that *could* be enemies. When the enemy "engages" (or moves out to engage) the CFs, or is engaged (such as by area fire) by CF, a check is done to see whether they are actually COBs. If they are COBs, CF takes a hit on its victory points if it engaged incorrectly. On the flipside, if you wait too long, you could get blown up or ambushed.

Sage

[PSY]

One thing that impacts the spotting, IMO, is the lack of COBs and the need to positively ID before shooting. (COBs = Civilians on Battlefield). Playing the 2nd campaign mission with the SVBIED taxis brought this to the fore. One of those SVBIED taxies was identified at about 600m as an SVBIED. In reality, it would only be able to be id'd as hostile based on its action and response to an EOF as it neared coalition forces. Likewise, seeing people moving around windows in a building isn't "hostile intent".

If you're talking about the 2nd Campaign Airbase Assault mission on the regular (i.e., non-Marine) campaign, if you check the conditions the Civilian Density is set to low. I think basically since the scenario takes place on a military base, any vehicle movement seen is considered hostile.

[GSX]

Is 1.11 worth getting, certainly is. Is it perfect, nope, but show me a game that is. Do a lot of you guys get over exited about perceived criticism - you certainly do.

Mickey D says it best (part from his weird reference to guys trying to ruin BF financially), its a flaming game. If you dont like it, then dont play it. However if you have a valid observation, then you shuold be able to state this too.

I would say as a single player game it quite playable but MP is still not a good experience, especially as a Syrian and so to balance things out you have to mirror the game, which spoils any surprises.

[G B Scurlock]

Hey everybody in this thread trying to help our buddy in Iraq. This Adam guy gits his willies by changing the intent and being discussed in a thread such as whats happened here. Steve, just ignore them and guys like this just fade away. By responding directly to him you give him relavence (?).

[sage2]

Hey everybody in this thread trying to help our buddy in Iraq. This Adam guy gits his willies by changing the intent and being discussed in a thread such as whats happened here. Steve, just ignore them and guys like this just fade away. By responding directly to him you give him relavence (?).

Thanks Scurlock.

In Adam's defense, he did provide valid and relevant feedback to my request for information.

[Battlefront.com]

sage2,

I would also be interested in hearing what other vets say about the dust.

That makes two of us So far nobody has mentioned that our hang time isn't sufficient, but that doesn't mean that we have it right.

One thing that impacts the spotting, IMO, is the lack of COBs and the need to positively ID before shooting. (COBs = Civilians on Battlefield)

Already in the game Certain types of civilian units are very difficult to spot when the situations are favorable for them. There are some details in the manual about this. But basically, if a civilian unit is out of its element then they will most likely be spotted. Spotting means they are confirmed hostile, which then makes them available for targeting. Civilian density (this is an abstract setting made by the scenario maker), action by the civilian unit, proximity to friendly units, and some other things determine if/when the unit is spotted. A Spy kept still in a third story building in a downtown setting is unlikely to be spotted. If it isn't spotted, then it isn't confirmed hostile, and therefore isn't targetable. But for the other side, that Spy is observing and reporting all the same.

Simulating civilians is extremely hard to do, which is why it's rarely attempted. Our system is simplistic enough to be practical from a development standpoint, yet realistic enough to add to the game instead of detract from it.

GSX,

Mickey D says it best (part from his weird reference to guys trying to ruin BF financially), its a flaming game. If you dont like it, then dont play it. However if you have a valid observation, then you shuold be able to state this too.

I agree with all of this, even MikeyD's reference to guys who have decided that since CM:SF isn't for them that we deserve to die a horrible commercial death. It's kinda fun to watch them spin their conspiracy theories and routinely denny reality when it conflicts with their wish for us to be commercially punished for not making them personally happy. The irony is that they think of CMBB as being the best thing we ever did commercially, when we think of it as the worst since it produced the lowest return on investment of all 4 of our CM games. Hence why we said long ago that we'd never do something like CMBB ever again. Another "success" like that would definitely kill us And it matters not that I think of CMBB as my favorite of the 4 in many ways, because when it comes to a business perspective it was a nightmare we would never allow ourselves to repeat again.

Every game out there has its fair share of nutters, we are no exception. They are a small, though annoying, bunch who overestimate their influence, underestimate ours, and generally haven't much of a clue about what they're talking about. If the nutters want to think we're about to go out of business, let 'em. As much as they would like to think they matter they really don't. We've been here for 10 years and will be here as long as we feel like it.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Yes

Steve

[purpheart23]

Alright then Steve let's get that v1.2 change log up.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request