Single Player Inop. Seriouly, Fix It! (etc)

[user38]

Has anyone actually done that? I know a lot of times people will go the extra mile to try to imagine some way that a game quirk might represent something in reality, but actually denying that there is a possible problem is something that I seldom see. Seems to me that the people who slap the label 'fanboy'—or now 'fanboi'—on someone who is honest enough to acknowledge that the whole question might just be a lot more complex than the complainer is too impatient to recognize, are just being immature pricks and shouldn't be surprised when they are jumped on. The general level of discourse here is reasonable and helpful. Most often, the digressions from that level are due to the whiners. Yes, there are problems with the game as is. I myself have commented on dozens of them in these pages. But I never found it necessary to get hysterical about it. If I can, I try to make positive suggestions that might lead to solutions. If the solution is beyond my imagining, I simply note the problem and move on. Most other posters, I am grateful to note, follow the same procedure. It's the infantile whiners who come in demanding attention, raising a big stink, and generally acting as if the world is coming to an end if their personal pet peeve is not immediately resolved, who cause the trouble. What's with these people? Are their lives so devoid of other sources of pleasure that they are apt to throw themselves out a window if CM does not perfectly match their expectations? If so, they need to pause, take a deep breath, and reconsider how they are living their lives.

Michael

Michael Emrys is not absolutely correct on this point. The immature pricks who engage in attention seeking infantile whining are, without fail, personally attacked. The views the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks express are subjectively true (an invalid opinion is a logical impossibility) yet when the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks express these opinions the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks are invariably personally attacked by those who appear not to understand the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective fact. When the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks express a personal view that they don't like the game the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks are attacked on the basis that the opinion expressed by the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks is wrong because the game is the best game on the planet. Not everyone attacks the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks . However, those that resort to personal abuse of anyone criticising their favorite game obviously has too much of their life invested in that game. That sort of behavior is called fanboyism.

The issue here is not that the fanboy forum posters don't recognise the flaws in the game. (Fanboys are invariably critical of the object of their obsession.) The issue here is that fanboys personally attack those who don't couch their criticism in the approved form.

The personal abuse was not started by the attention seeking infantile whining immature pricks. The "fanboy" label was brought out in response to some breathtakingly rude personal comments.

There are some bad people on this forum. And that's a fact.

+1 anyone?

[Freyland]

@sburke: Possibly. However with the derogatory use of "fanboy" being tossed about freely, I failed to notice, especially since I agreed with the poster's interpretation of Forum Psychology.

@user38: Wha...huh? I thought I was following you, but I apparently zigged when I should have zagged.

[user38]

vonRocko, could you clarify what part of ASL Veteran's post was condescending? I thought it was quite polite and rationally stated. In my bewilderment your credibility has diminished and I was hoping you could clear that up for me. Thanks in advance.

The basis of ASL Veteran's post was a straw man argument. That's pretty condescending.

[Freyland]

@user38: Okay, I think I got it. You do recognize that the "approved form" you refer to is called The Golden Rule, right? It works pretty well in RL and by default should on these forums as well. Even the OP acknowledged this. We are capable of expressing interesting facts and all sorts of opinions without being dicks about it.

[user38]

Freyland if you are going to acknowledge my point of view and rationally discuss the issues I have raised you are going to take all the fun out of posting on internet forums.

To be honest I am pretty disgusted by both sides of this argument. The post that started this thread raised a legitimate complaint expressed in a provocative fashion. I don't happen to agree with all of the opinions expressed in that post but I have to acknowledge that the opinions are valid in that they are ww2steel's opinions. I believe the post was calculated to create controversy, and predictably the reaction was an over reaction by those in this place who like to go negative. And the winner: everyone not taking part in the argument. I guess that makes you and me losers.

[DavidFields]

I actually very much enjoy this forum. There are people who post here that know military equipment, battle history, and military tactics to a meticulous degree. And many of the posters, including of course those from BFC, have clearly thought very deeply about the details from CM2 (and how to, practically, survive as a company)--the changes from CM1 to CM2 are monumental, intricate, and...I think have worked remarkably well.

That being said, the emotional sensibility of the forum seems more Von Braun or Admiral Rickover, not Baudelaire or Shakespeare.

From what BFC puts out: Note the CMBN manual does not have a chatty "Designer's Notes", expressing feelings and frustrations, and giving the wishes and hopes of the staff--something I have seen, in contradistinction, in "Civilization" manuals.

To some of the posters: "bad people on this forum"? Really. Can one type that without giggling?--and I mean no disrespect to User38, who I am going to presume is a fine person. (If nothing else, the ironic "Something Profound" is sort of fun.)

"Fanboy"? Ouch?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that BFC can be grumpy (I am sure they could list why that would be justified), but very responsive. I don't think it is too kind to say, but only based on looking at CM2, that the people who have worked on it are smart, dedicated, and passionate about their creation.

And the players of CM2? If they are doing this rather than playing Angry Birds, there is a certain similar passion there, also.

So, let's all shake hands and make nice.

Or, fire up another scenario and continue killing people. (Very relaxing after a long day of work, helping people.)

[Doug Williams]

There are some bad people on this forum. And that's a fact.

+1 anyone?

Nah. Obnoxious? Yea. "Bad"....nah, I doubt it.

[Freyland]

Freyland if you are going to acknowledge my point of view and rationally discuss the issues I have raised you are going to take all the fun out of posting on internet forums.

Phhiibbbbbhhhhhttt!

There, we're having fun again.

I guess that makes you and me losers.

Well, I for one am sure I will appreciate your company.

[vonRocko]

I actually very much enjoy this forum. There are people who post here that know military equipment, battle history, and military tactics to a meticulous degree. And many of the posters, including of course those from BFC, have clearly thought very deeply about the details from CM2 (and how to, practically, survive as a company)--the changes from CM1 to CM2 are monumental, intricate, and...I think have worked remarkably well.

That being said, the emotional sensibility of the forum seems more Von Braun or Admiral Rickover, not Baudelaire or Shakespeare.

From what BFC puts out: Note the CMBN manual does not have a chatty "Designer's Notes", expressing feelings and frustrations, and giving the wishes and hopes of the staff--something I have seen, in contradistinction, in "Civilization" manuals.

To some of the posters: "bad people on this forum"? Really. Can one type that without giggling?--and I mean no disrespect to User38, who I am going to presume is a fine person. (If nothing else, the ironic "Something Profound" is sort of fun.)

"Fanboy"? Ouch?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that BFC can be grumpy (I am sure they could list why that would be justified), but very responsive. I don't think it is too kind to say, but only based on looking at CM2, that the people who have worked on it are smart, dedicated, and passionate about their creation.

And the players of CM2? If they are doing this rather than playing Angry Birds, there is a certain similar passion there, also.

So, let's all shake hands and make nice.

Or, fire up another scenario and continue killing people. (Very relaxing after a long day of work, helping people.)

OK, I'll drink to that!

[John Malcolm]

I suppose we, and Battlefront, should be thankful that people feel passionate about this game - even if that does boil over into arguments from time to time.

I'd like to think that even the most vocal critics of the game are doing so because they like the game and want to see it become better, and are perhaps just getting a bit frustrated.

That's what I'm going to assume from now on.

[theFightingSeabee]

ww2Steel,

I apologize if I flamed you with the NarcAnon link. The testers and especially BFC have a lot of time and energy invested in this baby, and when people throw major fits (of which there has been a lot lately) and make blatantly false comments (not pointing at you, buddy) it does get to the point of annoyance. One of the best pieces of advice my Dad gave me was to smile. He said he'd met some of his favorite people and gotten some of his best business contacts by smiling at random people. I feel like bringing that same attitude to the table here on the forums goes a long way. Being friendly and helpful will take you and your requests for changes/fixes further than being pouty and angry. So I do apologize for being a bit snotty there as long as you indeed would like the game to continue to improve.

Again, comments on how to improve the game are absolutely whole-heartedly appreciated by BFC and the testers, when done with some evidence, screenshots, saved games, and some thought as to how it might be fixed, all while being polite or at least somewhat professional. All of the testers were invited to test because they have done just that. I've made a ton of complaint posts, but I tried not to say false things and offered ways to fix/improve rather than ranting about how I got screwed over. When I have done that, the arguments are more based on the game mechanics and less on whose feeling were hurt and who is or is not a fanboy/fanman. Now I get the games for free, other than my testing time. I've had the patch installed for a while now. If you guys really want to see the game improve, then please help us out. Maybe you'll be invited in the next wave of testers.

The only thing CMx1 has that I'd love to have in CMBN/CMSF is movable waypoints. Having witnessed the development of CMBN, really since CMBF was in development, I have literally seen thousands of improvements made to everything from the TacAI to the UI to the graphics. There is no shortage of improvements over the CMx1 engine. The positives of CMx2 must outweigh CMx1 by 100:1.

The main advantage of CMx2 over CMx1 is the level of fidelity. I really hated having my squad members represented by counters or 3 guys representing a whole squad rather than being in 1:1. The 1:1 fidelity literally makes the game magnitudes more complex and realistic, where as before there was a lot more going on under the hood that you just had to trust was ok. The 1:1 fidelity truly makes it feel like I'm a commander looking over the battlefield rather than a commander looking at a map.

Having completed many scenarios, I would say, is proof that the game is not broken. Don't make me start posting my AAR screenshots to prove it.

[theFightingSeabee]

I suppose we, and Battlefront, should be thankful that people feel passionate about this game - even if that does boil over into arguments from time to time.

I'd like to think that even the most vocal critics of the game are doing so because they like the game and want to see it become better, and are perhaps just getting a bit frustrated.

That's what I'm going to assume from now on.

That's perfect. My previous post should have been so elegant. Agreed 100%.

[Vark]

Were the disagreements about CMSF as heated, or, in some cases, so crudely put? Seems to me far too much emotional energy is being put in this game by people who have not invested any time in its development. Don't like it, tough, buy a new game. Can't find one? Take up miniature wargaming where you can rewrite any rule you don't like, bitching because it needs patches, tough, name me one PC game of similar complexity that has not needed patches, often produced by companies with vastly more resources than BF.

[Freyland]

Pssst... Vark.... Can't you tell we're having a run of peace and love here? Don't screw it up!

[ww2steel]

tFS- actually the link was kinda funny after the fact.

To all -

Movable waypoints, I agree, but I never set too many at a time anyway. I had forgotten about the three man icon, yes, the newer is better as far as more immersive, while practically it makes no difference if the soldats are abstracted or not, I do like the newer feel. I do feel that the game is much more immersive in many ways. I absolutely love the realtime since I play SP. I will never choose to go back to wego if I have the choice, realtime is absolutely my favorite upgrade. Practically in actual gameplay I don't see many changes, but I will have to go back and play CMBB now that I'm getting used to CMBN and see what I miss.

Why do I get emotional? Because I have spent thousands and thousand of hours and don't think I'll ever find a game / simulation so enjoyable so if they don't get it right I'm far more disappointed than just losing $55 and going and buying a new game. I'd pay $500, more? (literally, I am absolutely serious) for this game built exactly as I want. Several times I offered hundreds of dollars to BFC (speaking directly to management) to make minor equipment patches for me to improve the old game while CMSF was in development and was completely declined. I think I offered a couple of hundred just to add in a Maus. (I might still pay this!) I've written about 800 pages of data for the CM1 series but unfortunately I can't release it because I didn't keep a bibliography of what came from where in a pretty big library on armor that I have. During ballistics tests alone I have run 109,824 tanks in head to head engagements recording detailed results. In mobility tests I logged speed and immobilizations over different conditions and terrains for different vehicles over 27 MILLION MILES (43,000,000+ km). This quite obviously just scratches the surface of my tests and research into this sim. I've tried and tried and tried to crack parts of the game, especially savegames (to make a better battle to battle link by inserting your carries over troops/ maps different from how the game allowed), bit by bit by bit and I did make some decent progress but I guess I'm just not smart enough to crack it...

Am I am fanboy??? Um, yes. That's WHY my tone is what it is. I wish I could personally hire these guys to build the game I want, but that's just not in the cards and I just don't have the cash to pay a team to start from scratch.

Regards to everyone... I still want my cactus.

Mike

[LeadMeister]

... I still want my cactus.

Mike

Impressive homepage Mike; Professional pilot, WW2 collector, WW2 restoration, WW2 reenactments, and CM1 data Guru. Very cool :cool:

Question ... Where the hell do you get the time? :eek:

[mjkerner]

tFS- actually the link was kinda funny after the fact.

To all -

Movable waypoints, I agree, but I never set too many at a time anyway. I had forgotten about the three man icon, yes, the newer is better as far as more immersive, while practically it makes no difference if the soldats are abstracted or not, I do like the newer feel. I do feel that the game is much more immersive in many ways. I absolutely love the realtime since I play SP. I will never choose to go back to wego if I have the choice, realtime is absolutely my favorite upgrade. Practically in actual gameplay I don't see many changes, but I will have to go back and play CMBB now that I'm getting used to CMBN and see what I miss.

Why do I get emotional? Because I have spent thousands and thousand of hours and don't think I'll ever find a game / simulation so enjoyable so if they don't get it right I'm far more disappointed than just losing $55 and going and buying a new game. I'd pay $500, more? (literally, I am absolutely serious) for this game built exactly as I want. Several times I offered hundreds of dollars to BFC (speaking directly to management) to make minor equipment patches for me to improve the old game while CMSF was in development and was completely declined. I think I offered a couple of hundred just to add in a Maus. (I might still pay this!) I've written about 800 pages of data for the CM1 series but unfortunately I can't release it because I didn't keep a bibliography of what came from where in a pretty big library on armor that I have. During ballistics tests alone I have run 109,824 tanks in head to head engagements recording detailed results. In mobility tests I logged speed and immobilizations over different conditions and terrains for different vehicles over 27 MILLION MILES (43,000,000+ km). This quite obviously just scratches the surface of my tests and research into this sim. I've tried and tried and tried to crack parts of the game, especially savegames (to make a better battle to battle link by inserting your carries over troops/ maps different from how the game allowed), bit by bit by bit and I did make some decent progress but I guess I'm just not smart enough to crack it...

Am I am fanboy??? Um, yes. That's WHY my tone is what it is. I wish I could personally hire these guys to build the game I want, but that's just not in the cards and I just don't have the cash to pay a team to start from scratch.

Regards to everyone... I still want my cactus.

Mike

Mike, if you had posted that first, there would have been many, many in agreement with you, I think. I got into a bit of a tiff with an old-timer/beta tester last Fall when I let blast a snide remark when BFC announced their general plan to not go to the Pacific Theatre (ever, apparently, but then, 3rd parties...). But he rightly got on my case. Cooler heads eventually prevailed.

I have been at your site before. Great stuff!

[LemuelG]

For my actual reason complaint, SP QBs, does anyone actually think I’m wrong??? My guess is that the likers are usually MP or prepared SP battlers and the dislikers are usually SP QB types. I am a SP QB type person and find that it is an grossly unfinished project ***IMO***. If you guys like it, I'm glad.

This post helped me understand what the heck was being discussed here, and I can have some empathy with you.

I do wonder exactly what you were expecting in terms of AI. I was glad when I saw what CM was doing with high-level AI... basically removing it from the equation, after playing the shambolic Total War titles of the last few years I can only say Good Riddance.

The unit-level AI in CMBN is really quite excellent, easily a cut-above the rest; the only problem is that the system is highly dependent on designer-input for deployment/movements etc. I constantly run into ATGs/mines etc that only a human's devious mind could have placed so perfectly, it makes this game quite playable solo in scenarios/campaigns - but in QBs that just wont happen.

It seems the future of this game is highly-scripted user-designed scenarios for mainly solo play and a QB system mostly appropriate for head-to-head play. I don't know why you don't play MP or scenarios/campaigns, please give them a go - follow the fun.

[Michael Emrys]

...the only problem is that the system is highly dependent on designer-input for deployment/movements etc. I constantly run into ATGs/mines etc that only a human's devious mind could have placed so perfectly, it makes this game quite playable solo in scenarios/campaigns - but in QBs that just wont happen.

I would dispute that. I've been playing QBs exclusively the last couple of weeks and the AI has consistently placed ATGs pretty effectively. I understand that the QB maps come with several plans designed into each one. I played three games on the same map and the AI setup was different in each one.

Michael

[ww2steel]

LM thanks. We never had kids (yet?). (It takes too long to teach 'em to weld.) Also pilots are home for longer blocks of time, so even though you are gone a lot, when you're home every day is like a Saturday so lots of time for projects.

It is BFC's DUTY to do pacific so I have more of a reason to study it! That would be really cool, but. (Why again don't they do it? I forget.)

Well, finding another player at the moment I have a whim to play is the issue. And after trying to MP easily cheatable games like PG2 and being shot in the back of the head 50 times by a 13 year old that wants the helo in BFV but never took the time offline to learn to fly it and crashes after tying up the team's asset for five minutes without firing a shot but still cussing at everyone on the server in tween pseudo English... oh crap, here I go again....

I have had fun online but it's finding another player that's the issue.

Oh hey, Leadmeister - I see you recently went to the 45th museum (yer site). I was just out in OKC myself for a few months. It was neat and unexpected to see that Tredegar cannon inside, made right here in my home town. I've been to the foundry where it was cast.

Just fought another inf vs inf battle, I lost 9 (three to my own arty...) and eliminated 84. Not quite as good as last night but last night I had tanks. Last game was over 100 enemy to 1 of mine lost. I usually get ~1:10 lost/enemy with CMBN. That's not crediting me, but I don't need to keep complaining about the same SP limitations.

The AI, yeah, CM1 was just the banzai charge for an AI attack but at least they were usually pretty good combined arms attacks. AI defenses usually weren't too bad I didn't think. The only problem was that you could just (real tactic of course) make your schwerpunkt on one flag, take it, and again, most of the remaining defenders would counter attack to allow you to easily defeat them since you had 1.4-1.72x their points allocated to begin with and now they are attacking you. Regardless, it worked but was very predictable.

I gotta get some sleep.

[ww2steel]

ME - last night I played one that had 3 PAK40s sitting at the end of a road in one big pile (inside each other). I sometimes see them placed okay, about 50/50 I have seen. I play the small maps. Maybe the AI just runs out of places to look and just dumps them.

[LemuelG]

I would dispute that. I've been playing QBs exclusively the last couple of weeks and the AI has consistently placed ATGs pretty effectively. I understand that the QB maps come with several plans designed into each one. I played three games on the same map and the AI setup was different in each one.

Michael

The problem with QB maps is that the designer doesn't have the luxury of knowing force-composition beforehand. There are multitudes of subtle factors to take into account when putting a defense together with the forces at hand.

My point is that human, context-sensitive deployment is best, and you get this in pre-baked scenarios. If it were solely up to AI, deployments would be routinely bad, we have seen it game after game.

[dieseltaylor]

Last edited by ww2steel : Today at 07:07 AM. Reason: my wife insisted that banzai was spelled bonsai... I told her that I didn't think they yelled 'little tree!' when they attack

Nice : ) ...........

[aka_tom_w]

The problem with QB maps is that the designer doesn't have the luxury of knowing force-composition beforehand. There are multitudes of subtle factors to take into account when putting a defense together with the forces at hand.

My point is that human, context-sensitive deployment is best, and you get this in pre-baked scenarios. If it were solely up to AI, deployments would be routinely bad, we have seen it game after game.

Good Comment, this point sort of highlites the root cause of the problem here, that is the UNREALISTICALLY high expectation of the ability of the game to make you happy playing QBs. Quick Battles and quick battle set ups SIMPLY CANNOT be the same as a competent human, context-sensitive deployment, PERIOD. The game has plenty of fantastic pre-baked scenario's. These scenario definitely showcase the games talent and potential and all its strengths with respect to how the AI can be scripted by the designer, with the MAP features and the strengths and weakness of the units (one each side usually) in mind, in a thoughtful and context sensitive manner.

Why criticize the game for what it is perceived to be lacking while focusing only on playing QBs?? Why not try one of the campaigns or play test a few pre-baked scenarios OR better yet why not try to design your own scenario and try your hand at scripting the AI yourself to see how its done, THEN play the battle against your own AI plan? FWIW

[beatmasta]

During ballistics tests alone I have run 109,824 tanks in head to head engagements recording detailed results. In mobility tests I logged speed and immobilizations over different conditions and terrains for different vehicles over 27 MILLION MILES (43,000,000+ km).

Someone is definitely having too much spare time...