RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/17/2007 4:04:24 PM)

quote:

I'm actually having a hard time understanding how the action area meshes with 1-1 representation, as the two concepts appear contradictory unless the area size is small enough to represent the location of an individual.


This is abstracted. Or to put it another way, they traded one abstraction for another and called it improved.

In the military, they always emphasize intervals. Spread out, get your interval. Even on chow-line, don't bunch up. When digging in, we were dug in 2 men to a position with 20 meters between positions. This could vary depending on terrain, fields of fire, etc.. So we were spread out over many 'action-spots'.

The game seems to 'spot one of ya, spot ya all'. Relative spotting means they spot you, they spot your brothers. But supposedly, the individual 1:1 digi-trooper gets terrain bennies. But not 100% sure how that all works out.

There's cover and concealment. Seems concealment takes a hit. Did they also trade one for another?



dinsdale -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/18/2007 7:26:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
In the latter case, you have more flexibility to do so, if you wanted to have drop off of, say, weapons effects at the 250, 350 etc. metre mark.
Is this perhaps the type of thing he's getting at? I believe that is what you mean by granularity, anyway?

Also flexibility of maneuver. The more "hexes" the more room to do things, regardless of scale.

quote:


8m seems like a pretty good "grain" for this scale of combat, then. The old system was a 20 metre terrain grid; I think some game functions were on a 2 metre sub-grid, at least unit placement was.

See that's what I don't understand. Is 8m where each vehicle/soldier is located, or vehicle/squad/heavy weapon? 8m seems (to me anyway) too large an area for 1 person and too small an area for a group.

quote:


These are pretty deep details that most gamers don't get into; I must confess an interest in them myself, so the conversation is interesting to me.

The only reason I bring it up is that it appears to be noticeable and jarring with the screen representation of what's happening. At least that's the way it reads. I couldn't get the demo to run on my machine, so I can't tell how it plays. Obviously as I play many games where divisions are stacked up on top of each other in a hex 10's of miles wide, abstraction doesn't always destroy the suspension of belief, I'm just curious how SF works because it doesn't "feel" right from reading. Obviously, playing it may be a different matter.

quote:


So what is it we are saying about the strengths/weaknesses of the 8m grid?

See above, is the 8m grid a location of an individual or group? It just doesn't seem to be a scale which suits either in a 1-1 small unit game.



Fredk -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/20/2007 9:36:37 AM)

Hi gents - been a while since I posted, but I feel pretty strongly about this one. I bought this one on pre-order (which was stupid, yes), but I have to say I haven't felt this burned by a game for a long long time.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/23/2007 4:02:20 PM)

Supposedly posted by battlefront a couple years ago..

quote:

3 CM games released to date, dozens of awards including 3 PC Gamer Strategy Turn Based Game of the year awards (2000,2002,2003) plus a Computer Gaming World Wargame of the Year award (2002). Games that have been sold in virtually every single country on Earth. All of it, based upon an unproven game concept and idea and a vision by a virtually unknown, small software company. And now we stand, on the cusp of the next generation of wargaming realism and fun.

Those of you who trusted us before were rewarded with games that met or surpassed your expectations. Those of you who doubted us and complained? Well you got the same damn gameplay and still loved it!

So, maybe, just maybe WE KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING!


I think they should re-read that now over a nice warm glass of STFU.



Erik Rutins -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/23/2007 4:11:41 PM)

Please stick to discussing the game and let's not make this personal regarding Battlefront.

To be perfectly clear, discussing CMSF here is fine as long as it's a discussion, but any attacks on Battlefront are not ok. They have a forum of their own and I'm sure they'd appreciate the chance to respond, as would we if the situation were reversed. I understand some folks don't like CMSF and some do, that's fine, but stick to discussing the game here please.

Regards,

- Erik



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/24/2007 6:30:25 AM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002600;p=7

Fair enough.  Here's a good post between a waffling flip-flopper, a kitchen sink and a evolving forward thinking developer and a slippery-slope-sneaker.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/26/2007 7:14:21 PM)

If I were BF I would revamp thegame and target the military market.

I would design it so that the 'player' commands a company mix. A couple platoons of M1's and a Bradly platoon, or one M1 tank platoon and two Bradleys, or a Bradley platoon and two Humvee platoons, etc.

The infantry AI would be fixed so that the company commander does not have to micromanage the infantry. Infantry use drills to do things and that has to be coded (I have been saying this for years..)

The other companies are controlled by other training LTs and Captains. Enemy may likewise be controlled by AI or real 'players'.

Platoon movement orders for vehicles must be given in a quick tempo without using that awful interface.



Hertston -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 4:38:01 PM)

I'll dig this one up just to say that 1.03 is actually a huge improvement, if not a total cure-all. This is the version that should have been released.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 5:24:26 PM)

The 1.03 demo should have been the version that was pre-released



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 9:22:51 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002792;p=1

In addition to gameplay fixes, the graphics have been radically upgraded; thread above has comparison screen shots

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002792;p=4#000076

Try this post in particular.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:14:46 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002600;p=7

This is a good page also



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:24:38 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002803

Here's a better discussion of 1.03



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:25:10 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002797

This one's pretty good too.



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:25:42 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002794

And another one.



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:30:57 PM)

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=013287

This one has amazingly little to do with CM:SF but features a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:33:54 PM)

Did you get banned from BF?



Erik Rutins -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 10:47:14 PM)

Ok, that'll be enough, thanks.



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (8/31/2007 11:00:30 PM)

I apologize for the silliness; for those interested, though, the first of my posts does have some comparison screenshots of the 1.03 patch. In addition to gameplay fixes, there are graphical upgrades. I don't mean just skins, but a new way of displaying the old ones that adds much greater depth to the old textures and provides much sharper detail at all distances. I'm not a big "graphics" guy, but there's a great difference. There are also obvious other changes like improved pathfinding, etc. As usual, anyone interested in learning more is welcome to post at the BF.C forums and find out more.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 12:31:36 AM)

Because you can't have it both ways. You seem to be trying to play to two different audiences. So yes, I do see your comments differ substantially from the remarks of others because they are extremely confused. I'm not saying you have to love or hate the game, and nothing inbetween, but you can't seem to make up your mind about what you like and don't like about it, or at least why you do or don't. I'm not the only one to notice this apparent split personality of your postings. Again, I don't expect you to have a black and white viewpoint, but it would be nice if it were at least consistent from post to post.
Steve @ battlefront



JudgeDredd -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 12:57:09 AM)

Michael

I don't want to ask on the BF forum, because I rarely post there, and nothing conclusive has come from the seqrch...so can I ask you here please...?

What of the WEGO system? Is it "dropped"? Has it been "fixed" in the latest patch?

1.02 showed no changes that I cared about for WEGO...and specifically what I am talking about is stacking of commands....so I can order my unit ot go to x, face y and target arc...etc.

Do you know f stacking of orders has been "fixed"?

I'll be downloading the 1.03 patch asap...but more wondering what the future of wego is?

Thx
Billy



madorosh -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 1:52:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Michael

I don't want to ask on the BF forum, because I rarely post there, and nothing conclusive has come from the seqrch...so can I ask you here please...?

What of the WEGO system? Is it "dropped"? Has it been "fixed" in the latest patch?

1.02 showed no changes that I cared about for WEGO...and specifically what I am talking about is stacking of commands....so I can order my unit ot go to x, face y and target arc...etc.

Do you know f stacking of orders has been "fixed"?

I'll be downloading the 1.03 patch asap...but more wondering what the future of wego is?

Thx
Billy


Billy - WEGO was never dropped; it's been in from the start. Some functionality has been lost due to the file sizes; this was announced I think two years ago if not earlier. PBEM is still possible, but because of the large amounts of data transferred, some form of file client may be necessary rather than straight email. As far as TCP play, they are looking at a workaround for WEGO but no, it has not materialized yet.

Not sure I understand "stacking of orders" - you mean editing orders at each waypoint? I think that has been addressed; if not, it is on the list - you'll be able to tell more once you'll applied the patch.

The future of WEGO is that it isn't going anywhere. I think the forum discussions have mentioned trying to get it into TCP though possibly without the ability to rewind - the data is too much to incorporate?

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002538#000009

Steve mentions a timeout feature in TCP play similar to professional sports in this thread.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001832#000013

These are Steve's comments on filesize.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001989;p=3#000059

Steve's comments on the future of WEGO.

Hope this helps?



JudgeDredd -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 3:42:12 AM)

Not interested in PBEM or multiplayer tbh.

As for stacking of orders, at the minute (v1.02) in a 60 second pulse I have to give the order to disembark. I then have to see that 60 second pulse go before I can order a deploy command....another 60 seconds goes by before I can order the face command, or the target command...by stacking I mean I want the unit to move to x, deploy, face and target area...and I want to issue these commands in one go before I pres the play button.

The ability is there, I believe, in RT, but as far as I am aware, not in WEGO.

And as far as what has been posted about the game or not in the past, I don't know which is why I am asking the question to you. I know WEGO has not been dropped, but it certainly isn't working how it used to and, for that reason, is not playable.

Thx for your time.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 8:32:12 AM)

Are the PBEM files still huge after patch 1.02? I understand they go well up into the MB's those of us on dialup that doesn't sound very promising for PBEM play.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 2:22:56 PM)

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF.



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 6:53:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=013287

This one has amazingly little to do with CM:SF but features a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.


Perhaps you do have a noticable lack of consistancy from post-to-post and thread-to-thread. You chide people about historical research, etc in other threads and then post stuff like this?





Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 7:07:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=013287

This one has amazingly little to do with CM:SF but features a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.


Perhaps you do have a noticable lack of consistancy from post-to-post and thread-to-thread. You chide people about historical research, etc in other threads and then post stuff like this?





Which one of you is speaking now, Lewis, Mr.Tittles or Username? [&:]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 7:11:38 PM)

Maybe you are leaving some out?  But regardless, you are a troll.  Have you had anything to add to this whole discussion besides fixating on me?

In any case, I am consistant!



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 7:47:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

In any case, I am consistant!


A quick note to our readers...

Common sense would suggest that Lewis would go away, were we to simply ignore him. Regrettably, this rarely works. If no one responds to the above, he will simply respond to himself in order to keep his troll going. It shouldn't matter, but this tactic pushes other, more substantive discussion down the forum, which is EXACTLY what Lewis intends, which brings us to this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lewis Carroll on The Hunting of the Snark

I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense ! Still, you know, words mean more than we mean to express when we use them; so a whole book ought to mean a great deal more than the writer means. So, whatever good meanings are in the book, I'm glad to accept as the meaning of the book.


Get it???

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Yoozername -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 7:59:44 PM)

...'our readers'?  Could you be more pretentious?

You are a troll.

Note:
General Discussion
Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

I will not get into more of the Combat Mission Fanbois-Noise. I will leave this thread by saying I will download the 1.03 demo, hopefully with a new mission, and not buy the product.
I am just interested in the path of development and not that particular game. I am also not going to buy product from them unless they resolve the other product, TOW first. I think the future is clear that Demo-First is the way to market.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (9/1/2007 8:11:31 PM)

Youzername don't fall for their tactics they are just flame baiting you like several here do me. I'm intelligent enough and smart enough just to overlook it and continue my FEEDBACK and reviews of the subject matter. I will attack a GAME, but, I don't stoop to attacking others as they do me. It shows my maturity over theirs. See the green dot underneath everyones name? Just click on that of the ones that annoy you like I have done Terminus and Judge Dredd. I never see what they say anymore unless someone quotes it and of course it's just usually another character attack. I'm really surprised Erik allows so much character attacking at his website. That doesn't bode well for the company either I wouldn't think.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875