First Reviews of CMSF

[KG_Jag]

Courtesy of our friends posting at ACG, I have learned that there at least two reviews of CMSF that are out there shortly before the game is officially released.

The first review is by well known PC and computer war game reviewer Tom Chick. This is a very critical review, which opens with:

"Here’s one for the game of the year list: Combat Mission: Shock Force is, at this point, a shoo-in for Most Disappointing Game of 2007. Battlefront’s presentation of modern combat is a serious letdown, partly for its design, but largely for the state of its release."

The link to it is here:

http://www.quartertothree.com/

In contrast, the second review (but first in time--dated July 16, 2007) by James Allen gives CMSF the highest possible rating. Be warned, however, that Allen is a scenario designer for CMSF [something he discloses in the middle of his review and a fact referred to by Chick in his own review] and can certainly not considered to be be an objective/detached reviewer.

See Allen's review here:

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/07/combat-mission-shock-force-review.html

[ER_Chaser]

Read both. Still puzzled. However, Chick has some good points, first of all, there is no chopper. Well, very true that in modern combat, one cannot imagine no choppers. No one mentioned about air ground missions either. Another crucial factor in modern wars.
About balance issue, I guess chick is overwhining, if they model the US as strong as in reality, there ain't going to be no game to play. And invisible enemies? what is the fun then ? LOL ...
The other thing missing is there is no comments (maybe I missed?) on PBEM features, which was the primary thing I was trying to dig out from the reviews.

[JaguarUSF]

To clarify...
I'm not a scenario designer per se: I designed some scenarios for fun while I was playing the preview beta to test out the editor, and I sent them to the developers. They decided to include some of them in the release after they cleaned them up for a bit. I had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the game. If someone makes third party scenarios using the editor, does that make them part of the development team? Of course not, and that's what I did. I just did them early enough to be included in the game.

[KG_Jag]

To clarify...
I'm not a scenario designer per se: I designed some scenarios for fun while I was playing the preview beta to test out the editor, and I sent them to the developers. They decided to include some of them in the release after they cleaned them up for a bit. I had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the game. If someone makes third party scenarios using the editor, does that make them part of the development team? Of course not, and that's what I did. I just did them early enough to be included in the game.

Although you do not say so directly, I conclude from your comments that you are James Allen. First I would like to thank you for directly stating your involvement with the upcoming game (to be released today) in the body of your review. In this day and time, when major sites don't disclose their common ownership and control with game publishers, and when actions at some sites are driven to satisfy game developers over gamers (apparently driven by the desire to garner advertising dollars), such full disclosure is both rare and refreshing.

That said, you did not design just one battle, but 5 of the 18 that come with the game. Further, since the game and its editor are not to being released to the public until today, you obviously were/are on the inside as the game was being developed. If you were what not on the development team per se, then what precisely was your role and level of involvement? Did you or will you receive any compensation for your contributions? If so, what is it?

I hope that this game and more importantly that the CM x 2 engine are outstanding products. However, the reviews to date are mixed at best. Here are two more:

http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/07/20/the-eyes-of-the-innocent/

and

http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_pc/Combat_Mission_Shock_Force_PC.htm

[Troy Goodfellow]

My blog comments are not a review, and aren't intended as such. Just observations about AI immersion with some comments based on playing the "review" version I was sent - an incomplete version apparently. I still have issues with the game, but the release version has many improvements.

My review will be at Gameshark sometime next week, I hope.

[Bertram]

Doesn't sound like 1.00 is ready to go. What's new??? I'd be very interested in hearing from one of our own after their first scenario.

Who has their hands on it now?

1.00/1.01 whatever, we're talking about day one version................

Who in our circle has it?

[Troy Goodfellow]

Doesn't sound like 1.00 is ready to go. What's new??? I'd be very interested in hearing from one of our own after their first scenario.

Who has their hands on it now?

The release version is 1.01. There is no reason for you to even see 1.00.

Troy

[Palantir]

... I conclude from your comments that you are James Allen. ...That said, you did not design just one battle, but 5 of the 18 that come with the game. Further, since the game and its editor are not to being released to the public until today, you obviously were/are on the inside as the game was being developed. If you were what not on the development team per se, then what precisely was your role and level of involvement? Did you or will you receive any compensation for your contributions? If so, what is it?

:nuts:


I admit it- I'm a third-party CM BO/BB/AK scenario designer per se... :halo:
Now someone send me a check! :laugh:
Oh and one for MadRussian and KG_ThorsHammer and Bogdan and...

[Mad Russian]

:nuts:


I admit it- I'm a third-party CM BO/BB/AK scenario designer per se... :halo:
Now someone send me a check! :laugh:
Oh and one for MadRussian and KG_ThorsHammer and Bogdan and...

What????

I gotta wait until you get your check first???!!!!:crosseye:

Well okay, if that's the way it's got to be.....

Good Hunting.

MR

[mangus2000]

Can i have some money as well :halo:

[JaguarUSF]

then what precisely was your role and level of involvement? Did you or will you receive any compensation for your contributions? If so, what is it?

I did thirteen scenarios while I did my preview of the game in May for fun, to test out the Scenario Editor and flesh out the preview content (there weren't very many scenarios available then). I sent them all to Battlefront for free (I received no compensation for it, just the neat feeling of having something I created included in the game), and they cleaned up and included five of those in the game. That's all.

[Palantir]

I did thirteen scenarios while I did my preview of the game in May for fun, to test out the Scenario Editor and flesh out the preview content (there weren't very many scenarios available then). I sent them all to Battlefront for free (I received no compensation for it, just the neat feeling of having something I created included in the game), and they cleaned up and included five of those in the game. That's all.


That IS cool! :clap:
Well Done Sir!! :salute:

But I just don't understand how someone just "messing" around with the editor for fun can come up with 5-13 scenarios of higher quality (no offense to you) in one month than the guys "paid" to sit around & create them for a year(s?)with unlimited resources?

Obviously this is good news for "third-party" scenario designers because it shows BF the quality of designing CM players out here can create on our own. :halo:

And alright MR- I'll have them send me one HUGE check and split it between us & a few others at the same time... :)

[JaguarUSF]

Actually, they cleaned them up for me....when I gave them to Battlefront, the basic design was there but it lacked the quality of the released scenarios.

[Mad Russian]

How many scenarios come with the game orginally?

Good Hunting.

MR

[KG_Jag]

James--thanks for your response and the information. It is good that our talented scenario designers are now aware of the the expert for designing at least battles using the CM x 2 editor. However, I believe that they will be waiting for some time before they receive any checks! ;)

[Mad Russian]

James--thanks for your response and the information. It is good that our talented scenario designers are now aware of the the expert for designing at least battles using the CM x 2 editor. However, I believe that they will be waiting for some time before they receive any checks! ;)


What????????

That's not what Palantir said earlier..he said the check was in the mail.

That check will be a long time coming for me. I'm not going to buy CMSF. I'm going to wait until we get back on some historical ground before I start using CMx2.

So, I guess I'll be waiting for some time at least for my check...next to Kerry's it will be a very small check indeed...

Good Hunting.

MR

[MKSheppard]

The big problem is the graphics are so uneven.

They look awesome up down and close; but when you go up to take a look at the big picture:

Link to picture (http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/944/screenshot23dw6.jpg)

It looks like a free open source game rather than a professional game

[Geordie]

Is it any good though?

[Mad Russian]

Is it any good though?

The demo's not much good.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bertram]

The chosen scenario sucks. Do you think in a daylight mission you'll like it? I would sure like all the same movement commands we've come to enjoy in the first three CM games!

Did you play RT or Hot Seat/PBEM?

[Mad Russian]

The chosen scenario sucks. Do you think in a daylight mission you'll like it? I would sure like all the same movement commands we've come to enjoy in the first three CM games!

Did you play RT or Hot Seat/PBEM?

I think you can lighten the screen using PBEM HELPER.

Open PBEM HELPER and hit ctrl+shift and a number between 1-6. 4 should lighten the screen where you can see what's happening without a black screen.

I played vs the AI and only the training tutorial. My graphics card may not have been working like it should though I never saw a Syrian. Or any of my guys. Just the 4 Strykers and they shot up alot of trench and the game said I won.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kawaiku]

I had the same problem in the training scenario MR. I had to get down to the ground to see the trenches and the guys I was shooting at. My inf. were near useless as they got shot up by the Strykers did all the work and I won for not even entering the trenches.
The scenarios reminded me somewhat of CMAK's demo scenarios.

[ER_Chaser]

From all your comments, I feel battlefront needs a better management team... :p

[KG_Jag]

Here's an AAR that KG_SSpoom found and posted at the KG web site:

http://forums.mzocentral.net//index.php?showtopic=18238&pid=248352&st=0&#entry248352

Two more reviews; one bad (of the v1.00 Paradox released version):

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=80542

The other--very good:

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44744


KG_SSpoom has played a CMSF campaign and reports the following at our web site:

"I have played through the training scenarios without any Issues.
I also played the 1st campaign battle and got a minor loss as Americans.
In trying to keep my casualties down I wasn't able to force my way down a road that was covered by 300+ troops a few bunkers and 20+ tanks arriving piecemeal. I killed almost 200 bad guys and knocked out 21 tanks.
I had 23 injured no dead, lost 2 strykers and had 3 of my 4 Abrams tracked.
The game felt quite accurate compared to what I have heard/read about combat in Iraq it had a very "real" feel to it."

[ER_Chaser]

Was that against AI (KG SSpoom's first campaign game) or ppl?

In my short playing around with AI, I frustratedly find that the AI does not seem to respond to my threat at all ---- even if I am firing at them. For example, my two strykers were shooting at 3 T72's with their machine guns for 2 minutes! And those guys were just giving their backs on me ignoring anything that is going on. (I did not understand why the stupids were shooting the tanks with MGs, I did not figure out how to have them to use their javelin, they all have 3, but never used). And later, my M1A1s came in and shoot all the T72's to death, still none of them moved. And the experience level I chose for opponent was "Elite". No idea what is going on.

[kawaiku]

Was that against AI (KG SSpoom's first campaign game) or ppl?

In my short playing around with AI, I frustratedly find that the AI does not seem to respond to my threat at all ---- even if I am firing at them. For example, my two strykers were shooting at 3 T72's with their machine guns for 2 minutes! And those guys were just giving their backs on me ignoring anything that is going on. (I did not understand why the stupids were shooting the tanks with MGs, I did not figure out how to have them to use their javelin, they all have 3, but never used). And later, my M1A1s came in and shoot all the T72's to death, still none of them moved. And the experience level I chose for opponent was "Elite". No idea what is going on.
Heh, I played easy and had the same problem. Funny how that works.

[KG_Jag]

Based on his post, the results and because he is still learning the game--I am 95% sure that KG_SSpoom was playing against the AI in the campaign he described.

[KG_Jag]

Here's a mini-review posted at our KG website by KG_Scout, who happens to be an Abrams commander in Iraq:

"My little review:

The graphics are beautiful, the vehicles are very detailed. Love the Camel-backs and gas masks on the soldiers.

The gameplay is a little more fast-paced, on a small scenario its nice to have a real-time feature, on a large scenario forget it.

It has a lot of bugs my mouse is very jerky and freezes when I hit shift to click and drag, hopefully patches will fix most of the bugs. The AI could use a little help. My vehicles never seem to be able to spot stuff thats not right in front of them, which is insane because almost every vehicle we have today has a 360 degree cupola or separate commander's viewer. I know that with the hatches closed I can look over the sides and back of my tank and even back it in and out of alleys at the same time my gunner is looking forward.

It lacks the depth of previous CM games. I liked being able to pick forces for multiplayer, and I can't seem to find any random map generator or quick scenarios. Over time custom made scenarios will hopefully help with this.

It just seems like less of a thinking man's game and more like a click-point-click and watch things go boom game.

Reinforces my opinion that Strykers suck and I'm disappointed in my army for putting our soldier's in them. Im very happy to be in an Abrams and not one of those rolling coffins.

Can't really compare it to combat in Iraq, maybe like 2003-2004 time frame but it seems like all I'm doing here now is driving in circles getting hit by IEDs and snipers who are experts on hiding within the local population. Maybe I need better AI because I have rarely been able to spot them.

Overall? Its fun. I wouldn't call it a "waste" of money... But when I want some serious CM action, especially multiplayer, looks like Ill be going back to the previous games."

[ER_Chaser]

Very helpful insights! Esp. from a true tanker of today :) Thanks a lot! (well, not a good news for battlefront though :p )

[John Osborne]

Why is it not good news for Battlefront? You know something that we don't know?

[ER_Chaser]

Nah, I mean this part from KG Scout's review:
"Overall? Its fun. I wouldn't call it a "waste" of money... But when I want some serious CM action, especially multiplayer, looks like Ill be going back to the previous games."
... definitely not positive. :p

[John Osborne]

I agree for right now. I'm going to test the TCP/IP this weekend with a friend of mine who has the game and will post what happen. Granted there is bugs and we're working on them. We should have patch 1.02 out by this weekend, I hope, but it will fix some of the issues and then there will be another patch that will fix other bugs that needs more testing to get it right.

JohnO

[ER_Chaser]

Way to go, John! We have high hopes on you! :)

[kawaiku]

I agree for right now. I'm going to test the TCP/IP this weekend with a friend of mine who has the game and will post what happen. Granted there is bugs and we're working on them. We should have patch 1.02 out by this weekend, I hope, but it will fix some of the issues and then there will be another patch that will fix other bugs that needs more testing to get it right.

JohnO
So do you plan on giving anyone a free version anytime soon? *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

[Mad Russian]

So do you plan on giving anyone a free version anytime soon? *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

I think I heard that BFC was going to start giving out free copies of CMx2 about the time that CMx4 was hitting the markets....makes it hard to make a profit if you give the product away!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[kawaiku]

Good Hunting.

No kidding

[John Osborne]

I think I heard that BFC was going to start giving out free copies of CMx2 about the time that CMx4 was hitting the markets....makes it hard to make a profit if you give the product away!!

Good Hunting.

MR

And where did you that from?

[Nemesis Lead]

Have played CMSF (full version) for about 6 hours.

The game is extremely buggy. So buggy that it is not worth discussing here (visit the BFC site and you can see all the complaining). I am not concerned about bugs as I am sure that patches will solve many of the issues.

More importantly, it is also missing many cool features from CMX1. Nonetheless, I am keeping an open mind and waiting for patches. The underlying game seems to be really good but they need a number of things:

1) Random map generator

2) The ability to pick your units

3) Cover Armor Arcs (you only get a general cover arc)

4) Trenches and other fortifications (TRPs)

5) Detailed Unit Descriptions

6) etc..

What I like:

1) No borg spotting

2) Command system

3) Graphics

4) Vehciles can carry ammo for men and you can resupply infantry

5) Artillery and airsupport interface will be cool when all bugs worked out

6) Option of playing real time

7) Small arms area fire seems effective (in CMX1 it was not effective enough)

8) Interface seems better than CMX1 when you get used to it.

The most surprising thing....infantry is very weak in this game. Armored vehicles just chew infantry up and infantry can kill each other at outlandish ranges. I think there may be a bug with terrain not providing protection bonuses or something but........something to think about.

[Mad Russian]

No kidding

Yeah, I think CMx4 is due to hit shelves in 2083. I'll have BFC put you on the free game list for CMx2 though. Just sit back a few decades and watch for your free copy of CMSF to show up....and remember it was me that got it for you!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

The most surprising thing....infantry is very weak in this game. Armored vehicles just chew infantry up and infantry can kill each other at outlandish ranges. I think there may be a bug with terrain not providing protection bonuses or something but........something to think about.

Ah, my old nemesis shows back up!!

Remember in the modern world of combat, what can be seen can and most likely will be killed. Infantry should always be heard and not seen if you want to keep it alive. The first thing your opponent should know of your infantry is when he hears the first shots of your ambush going off!!

Good Hunting

MR

[kawaiku]

Yeah, I think CMx4 is due to hit shelves in 2083. I'll have BFC put you on the free game list for CMx2 though. Just sit back a few decades and watch for your free copy of CMSF to show up....and remember it was me that got it for you!!

Good Hunting.

MR
Only if you're around to hand it to me personally:cool:

[Mad Russian]

Only if you're around to hand it to me personally:cool:

Well then...let's see...I would only be 128..I might not be handing anything out about that time of my life. On could only hope I would be still playing CM!!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bertram]

How many times have we read or responded to past releases of new games before they are ready?????

It goes beyond games of course. Microsoft is often accused of selling software 'early' then patch it later. In the newest case, Battlefront has rushed CMSF out the door. I just read PO Nemesis Lead's comments on a PBEM game he was playing that they agreed to stop until a patch came out before proceeding.

Does the game work better vs the AI? Does any part of the game work satisfactorily?

Does it help or hurt BF getting the product out early but flawed?

[Tanker]

I would think it hurts them badly. I also don't understand their abuse of anyone pointing out flaws in the game on the bfc forums.

[Nemesis Lead]

How many times have we read or responded to past releases of new games before they are ready?????

It goes beyond games of course. Microsoft is often accused of selling software 'early' then patch it later. In the newest case, Battlefront has rushed CMSF out the door. I just read PO Nemesis Lead's comments on a PBEM game he was playing that they agreed to stop until a patch came out before proceeding.

Does the game work better vs the AI? Does any part of the game work satisfactorily?

Does it help or hurt BF getting the product out early but flawed?

It is funny. I bought the full version (with the silly map and everything) because I believed in supporting BFC financially. I believed that this was a company that held itself to a higher standard.

No more. CMSF is unplayable and they never did send me my rule book or map. As a businessman, I can't understand the logic of releasing something that is unplayable. All the trade magazines are going to review your game and bash it with poor reviews. Word will also get out on forums/blogs that your game is the pits. I just don't understand. First impressions are key.

The underlying game looks great but.....when you look at the new stuff you get with CMX2 vs. what you give up with CMX1.......this is not a great leap forward. I am not even sure this one will take us forward!

[mangus2000]

I got the game on release day and after a couple of goes it seems to be working ok for me now (not done a ny PBEM or RTS though).
Of course it is still buggy in some places but it loads up and does not crash for me (:lier:well once it crashed while spotting for some 81mm Mortars).
The one problem i have seen with it occasionally is the sky flashing black when i move the mouse over some units (anyone else seen this?), after a while it does your eyes in but has only happened once or twice.

Game wise it seems much like CMx1 with a few bells and whistles but not to many to move it forward that much (from what I can see). The interface is very cumbersome but i'm sure i can get used to that after a while.
The one thing that surprised me most was the Campaign game:surprise:. It's rubbish!!!!
As has been said on another site, it does not draw you in with (from what i can tell) a full overview of how the whole war is going. Just one scenario after another doesn't seem very dynamic to me:upset:. It's a shame when they could have done something special with this.

[The Warrior]

Ok guys. I have had the game now for about a week and while I have not played a PBEM, I have played several battles and I think its a pretty good game over all. Yea there are some bugs such as path scotting for vehicles and such but I would hardly call the game unplayable.

I have had no crashes as of yet and the game run great on my system with all video settings maxed out. I think with a patch or two it will be a great game that all will like.

Unless you're just down right against this game because it's not dealing with world war 2 and lets face it, there are some players like that.

[Nemesis Lead]

Ok guys. I have had the game now for about a week and while I have not played a PBEM, I have played several battles and I think its a pretty good game over all. Yea there are some bugs such as path scotting for vehicles and such but I would hardly call the game unplayable.

I have had no crashes as of yet and the game run great on my system with all video settings maxed out. I think with a patch or two it will be a great game that all will like.

Unless you're just down right against this game because it's not dealing with world war 2 and lets face it, there are some players like that.

Wait till you play a PBEM. The game is unplayable. I literally could not finish my game because almost all my units stopped moving. My opponent could not get many of his units to shoot.

I was probably this game's biggest fan as you can gauge from my pre-release posts. I defended it from the folks who did not like the non-WW2 genre. I cannot, however, defend and overlook all the issues that stem from BFC releasing this game way too early. They are going to pay the price for the crap demo and the lousy reviews that the game is getting. I don't see a whole lot of business sense in BFC's moves....

I am sure this game will be great after all the patches AND if BFC actually listens to what its customers are telling them (basically bring back a lot of what was good in CMX1). I am sure BFC will pull off the former, but the latter appears to be in some serious doubt.

[ER_Chaser]

Question to you guys again (since I posted long time ago in this thread, so maybe new readers missed it), in single player mode vs. AI, in full version, did you ever have the experience that the enemy is not returning fire even if being shot for about 2 turns? (my original case: in demo scenario, my stryker shoots the T72's with MG for 2 turns, T72's never returned fire, until my M1's finished them off each by one shot.)
Another question on this same incident: why would the stryker shoot the T72's with MG for 2 turns? When they all have 3 javelins unused at all, or is it just I do not know how to properly use the missile in this new interface? Thanks.

Also, Arthur, thanks for sharing the words with us :) I, for one, is a WWII buff ... however, I only insist on WWII games on strategy level, not like CM series, tactical level, I actually like the modern mode a lot. The other thing not revealed in demo I'd like to ask, do they cover choppers?

One game is about to release very soon, World of Conflict ---- I saw the videos about it, it is ..... brilliant ---- if CM is ever going to the RTS direction, I think they have serious competitors in every aspect: graphics, mechanics, technology and design. I really hope CM won't dump its strong suit of WEGO system (which is wonderful! ) which allows fair play at the same time with enough time to plot complicated and serious strategies at tactical level ---- I LOVE this!

[Poor Old Spike]

Sure Shock Force is bugged, but what new release isn't?
At least we've got something to be going on with til the patches come out, here are some bits I've gleaned from the manual -


USA

M136 shoulder-launcher - eff rge 250m
Javelin - rge 2500m




SYRIA

SPG-9 Recoilless - eff rge HEAT 800m, HE eff rge 2500m

AGS-17 Gren launcher - 800m eff rge v precision targets, 1200m eff rge v area-targs

RPG7 - eff rge 250m

RPG-29 - eff rge 500m

AT-3 (Sagger) - all variants 500m min rge to 3000m max rge (note can't engage at less than 500m)

AT-4 (Spigot) - min rge 70m to 2000m max rge (4C version max 2500m)

AT-7 (Saxhorn) - min rge 40m to 1000m max rge

AT-14 (Kornet) - eff rge 5000m

[KG_Jag]

Still sufficiently bug infested in its 1.01 version to merit a rating of 4.5 and "Poor" from Gamespot. :rolleyes: They are very critical of many aspects of the game, especially the AI. Their conclusion:

"CM: Shock Force is a tremendous disappointment. There is still a great deal of promise here, Battlefront has already started whipping the game into shape through what will no doubt be a long succession of patches, and the diehard fan base will undoubtedly use the included editor to make some impressive battles. Even so, no game should be released in such a rough, incomplete state."

Read it for yourself here:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforce/review.html

[Geordie]

After biting the bullet and buying it I am both happy and disappointed. It is very very buggy, even after the 1.02 patch. Although I haven't found it buggy enough to spoil my enjoyment.

The controls and RTS style are way different.

POS - your style of Tank Fist hunting packs is definitely out. Infantry with ATG dominate any engagement, however, infantry caught in the open by any weapon system die very fast. The Javelin is truly awesome and at 12 or more per platoon will dominate enemy armour as it almost never misses and when it hits, it kills. When I say almost never we are talking maybe once out of a hundred times.

Getting infantry to target is a tricky job, covering fire and over watch is a must, but you darent expose vehicles too much without first dismounting your inf, as when the vehicle brews most of your inf goes with it.

However, its not CM. They should have called it Shock Force as i believe that it is a totally different game altogether.

Once they get rid of the bugs and do a ww2 version, then it may mature into something longer lasting, but right now its not fun to be a Syrian....

[KG_Jag]

Here's mini-review on the 1.02 version posted by a wargamer on Usenet:

"Hi All,
Got time to play my first scenario since the patch came out. What's
changed from the ground so to speak and whats still not good? Here are my
views, just remember this is only one battle!

Good:
1. There is now an option in the options screen to allow the game to take
higher priority for processor usage. The readme notes state that selecting
this might cause mouse lag, but get better overall performance. Wheh I tried
it I got a marked improvement in performance and no mouse lag! Cool. This
could be down to the fact that my machine is dual core? Game now runs pretty
good now.


2. Troop survivability. Prior to the patch, if I kicked my men out of the
strykers, they would get mown down even before they had a chance to form up.
In this scenario I received very few casualties when I dismounted them. In
fact my highest troop losses occured when they were passengers of a vehicle
that got hit. This is pretty much what I'd expect. Now I don't know if this
is down to me employing better tactics (nowadays I pound the enemy with
supressive and get a stryker or two to pop smoke then get the infantry to
deploy behind the smoke).


3. One can now give orders in Elite mode whilst the game is paused! Now I
can plan attacks with simultaneous movement. Now I can mull things over.
Battle front should never have disabled this as there are many people in a
unit that in real life would give orders, not just one controlling person.


The Bad.
1. Path Finding. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!! Especially vehicle path finding. To
give you an example. Imagine my troops are in the desert in their strykers
that have formed a rough line around 2 deep. My strykers are busy pounding
the enemy and I decide to get some of the lead strykers to pop smoke and
deploy smoke. In this situation I'd expect the smoke to pop and the men to
leave the strykers by the rear then settle down into the ground. What
actually happens, is that my strykers decide that they actually need to move
to deploy my troops! What they did was turn side ways onto the field of fire
(great idea - not) and travel down the whole battle line, before driving
through the battle line (rear now exposed) then driving back to the rough
spot where they were, then they deploy the troops! WTF!!???


Battlefront, I gave my Strykers NO movement orders, I just dismounted my
troops. WTF do they feel they have to perform a grand tour of the forward
battle lines? From a coders point of view why don't they code the vehicles
to do excactly what the players want them to do? Surely this would be easier
to implement as you are using the players intelligence instead of the
game's.


Luckily for me I took no casulaties from this, but it does make one fume.


2. Enemy AI. Don't know if its the nature of the scenarios I play, but they
seem pretty static. No flank attacks or withdrawal by phase lines here. They
just hang out in their start locations and get pounded into the ground. The
original CM's were much better than this. One would always get suprises into
the original CM. The enemy were much more fluid there.


3. The ATGM section. CMSF allows one to pick part of their squad so that you
can order them to do stuff. Unfortunatley some twat of a programmer decided
it would be a good idea to put a timer on this selection. So you pick for
instance the ATGM section scroll and position the map to the target you want
them to hit, then just as you click the target the game defaults back to
full squad selection mode and you lose your targetting marker!!! WTF is the
point of this feature other than to irritate players?


4. There are slopes in CMSF that vehicles cannot climb. To me, they don't
look that steep and they certainly don't look too different from the slopes
that vehicles can climb. I don't mind this, but if the designers are going
to do this the player needs some kind of feedback. As an example you can
click a vehicle to move a few mtrs forward to crest a slope. The movement
marker goes down no problem and shows a nice direct path - cool. The vehicle
then starts moving then one notices that it is taking a magical mystery tour
to get there! Players need feedback! Maybe the game can replot the AI's
intention and use that plot to replace the players plot like in Harpoon2 and
3?.


5. Trenches. These things still shimmer like crazy when moving the camera.
This shimering is a result of the trenches being there one second, then
disapearing the next like they cannot make their mind up. Even worse,
trenches cannot be seen until you are almost on top of them. The code for
this needs looking at.


Overall I'm enjoying the game, but it is still a long way from being a
classic. If battlefront can get it tuned up and sorted out, they will have
an engine that can be used in a variety of theatres (from early 1900's
onwards), that now many other wargame companies will be able to match.


RobP"

Link to the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_thread/thread/af48dfc71de8d16a