View Full Version : Hey, some advice
Hey guys, i really wanna get CM:SF as I am a fan of the series, but from what i see, the game is virtually unplayable due to the bugs and technical issues involved. Those of you who have tried out the new patch, can you please let me know if it resolves these issues, and makes the game more playable, as I do want to buy it but only once it reaches an adequate patching stage where the bugs are gone.
Vas.
Nemesis Lead
16 Aug 07, 13:32
Hey guys, i really wanna get CM:SF as I am a fan of the series, but from what i see, the game is virtually unplayable due to the bugs and technical issues involved. Those of you who have tried out the new patch, can you please let me know if it resolves these issues, and makes the game more playable, as I do want to buy it but only once it reaches an adequate patching stage where the bugs are gone.
Vas.
1.02 solves a lot of single player problems (but not all). Not sure about multiplayer.....
By about 1.04 or 1.05 it should be a solid game.
Poor Old Spike
17 Aug 07, 15:54
BUY IT!
Sure it's buggy, but what new game isn't?
I'm having great fun with it even before patching it.. :)
In fact you can have fun with the free demo right now, here's a shot of my 4 x Strykers hosing down a trench full of the enemy in the demo -
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/sf.png
PS - I've also been writing a bit about Shock Force at the Proving Grounds here -
http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/index.html
Poor Old Spike
17 Aug 07, 19:13
Incidentally I just sent this mail to boss Steve at Battlefront -
Hi,
Best wishes for Shock Force which I see is taking a mauling in the CM community for being prematurely released before being adequately de-bugged.
Why didn't you come to me to help beta-test it?
I'm 59 years old, a lifelong wargamer, I was a wargame developer/playtester with Cases Computer Simulations, I've topped 3 separate CM ladders and contributed 400+ tactical advice posts and screenshots to the Blitz Tac forum, and as I'm currently off work I could have put in 16 hours a day helping you get Shock Force into shape..
Regards,
Poor Old Spike
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/WPCTIA.png
Incidentally I just sent this mail to boss Steve at Battlefront -
So did I... how weird:cheeky:
Well, here's my E-mail:
Hi,
Best wishes for Shock Force which I see is taking a mauling in the CM community for being prematurely released before being adequately de-bugged.
Why didn't you come to me to help beta-test it?
I'm 19 years old, a lifelong wargamer, I was a wargame developer/playtester with Cases Computer Simulations, I've topped 3 separate CM ladders and contributed 400+ tactical advice posts and screenshots to the Blitz Tac forum, and as I'm currently off work I could have put in 16 hours a day helping you get Shock Force into shape..
Regards,
Kawaiku
Kinda similar ain't it:cool:
Poor Old Spike
18 Aug 07, 10:01
You on crack mate?
Nemesis Lead
18 Aug 07, 11:00
There is some crack somewhere in this exchange!
You on crack mate?
Possibly...why? something wrong:devious:
Lol, you guys are funny. Well, i dunno, like, in that screen shot that you posted Old Spike, the graphics do look real choppy (even worse than CM2 i could say!) look at those dead bodies, theyre made up of only 3-4 polygons! Hehe. But thanks for the advice with the demo, I think that shall be first stop. Thank you!
Michael Dorosh
22 Aug 07, 01:18
Guys, I am on the beta team; just a word of advice - Steve is insanely busy with bug fixes as you can imagine. Good luck in your efforts to get on the team - I'd suggest contacting Madmatt or Moon also. Bear in mind, commenting on your ladder status will impress no one, as beta testing is simply not about that. I'm sure they will appreciate your interest, though. I know they want to find some fresh testers for the next module but I think they usually go in-house for the selection. You never know, though. I don't think you'll get far with "you should have contacted me" comments, and insulting the game probably won't do it either. ;) Good luck anyway, and maybe we'll see you on the team in future.
Oh wow, i downloaded the demo of the game... and... no disrespect to the creators and to those who like it... but the game is sooo poop that its almost a shame that the followup to CM and CM-2 is so crap.
I have a top of the range Alienware system, all latest updates, and still the game manages to freeze up at times and lag unexplicably, which is unreasonable considering the rubbish quality of the graphics.
I really do hope the next set of patches fix this, as, being a big fan of the first two combat missions, I was really looking forward to this game, and the sense of dissapointment is so huge, that I feel betrayed. Thank god i didnt go out and buy the game when i first heard it was out. I think i might wait for 6 months or so, before I consider purchasing it.
Poor Old Spike
22 Aug 07, 20:18
My PC is an ancient old thing but it runs CMSF without a hiccup with small and medium-sized battles, and the graphics are fine, look -
Syrian AT-14 ATGM
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/At-14Kornet.png
The pict that POS just posted- it may just be me but it looks like the figure was just cut & pasted on top of the building. They may want it to look real, but to me it doesn't look "real" at all. I don't like it and still prefer the CMx1 graphics.
The Hooded One
23 Aug 07, 00:52
The pict that POS just posted- it may just be me but it looks like the figure was just cut & pasted on top of the building. They may want it to look real, but to me it doesn't look "real" at all. I don't like it and still prefer the CMx1 graphics.
I agree - when I checked out the demo I found the graphics to be mightily unimpressive, and didn't add to the immersion at all.
The pict that POS just posted- it may just be me but it looks like the figure was just cut & pasted on top of the building. They may want it to look real, but to me it doesn't look "real" at all. I don't like it and still prefer the CMx1 graphics.
Well as long as they work for POS and it doesn't bother anybody else playing games against him, then there's no need to worry, although they do look bad, at least they work.
Poor Old Spike
23 Aug 07, 02:00
CMSF - SYRIAN SPG-9 Recoilless
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/SPG-9.png
Poor Old Spike
23 Aug 07, 02:04
CM for comparison to CMSF
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CM-ATWa.jpg
Thanks Mick that helped! :thumup:
From what I see the "problem" I have is that the background/terrain in CMSF is so bland & flat that the sharp graphic of men or machines makes them look like they are not "in" the terrain but "in front" of it.
The older CM graphics however are all in the same "style" and even though they are not as sharp/detailed they fit the same style terrain they are in.
I guess if you want 1:1 scale (like a FPS) you want things as sharp as possibile but on a squad/company scale I'm not that concerned. I'd rather have ok graphics & a good game than great graphics and a sucky game. :halo:
Michael Dorosh
23 Aug 07, 13:07
Thanks Mick that helped! :thumup:
From what I see the "problem" I have is that the background/terrain in CMSF is so bland & flat that the sharp graphic of men or machines makes them look like they are not "in" the terrain but "in front" of it.
Graphics are being worked on for the 1.03 patch; I think you guys will enjoy the changes.
Nemesis Lead
23 Aug 07, 14:37
I am far less concerned about the graphics than I am about BF leaving out so many great things from CMX1 (I have lamented all the things left out all over this website and at BF). Usually when something is improved it includes all of the old model's features and then adds a bunch more.
Unless the patches have huge changes.....I think I will stick to CMX1.
Poor Old Spike
23 Aug 07, 20:31
CMSF doesn't look bland to me (below) and my PC is only an old 'un with GeForce 2 64Mb card, although admittedly the larger scens and the higher detail settings make it a bit jerky, but luckily I prefer the smaller scens anyway..:)
And you can cycle detail level during play with SHIFT { and }, and also turn trees on and off etc..
I'd be able to do a full gallery of screenshot close-ups of every weapon type and vehicle in the game if there was a dedicated CMSF tac area at Gamesquad..
I like CMSF because you don't have to do as much micro-management as in old CM, you simply order a squad to "go here, go there, kill, don't kill" and hope they perform well enough within the framework of orders you give them, it's FUN and challenging trying to coax the best out of them even though they're dickheads at times, but we shouldn't blame them because you know how the old Army saying goes - "There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers"
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/CMSF.png
From what I see the "problem" I have is that the background/terrain in CMSF is so bland & flat that the sharp graphic of men or machines makes them look like they are not "in" the terrain but "in front" of it.
The total absence of shadows might have something to do with it too... :)
I'm guessing that's just a setting POS has turned off?
John
Poor Old Spike
24 Aug 07, 05:09
I can't get the shadows to show mate, I think its a bug..
There's supposed to be a key combo (ALT-W) to toggle them on and off but it doesn't do anything except make the infantry units vanish from the screen..
SYRIAN AT-3 SAGGER AT-MISSILE
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/AT-3.jpg
Poor Old Spike
24 Aug 07, 05:20
the graphics do look real choppy (even worse than CM2 i could say!) look at those dead bodies, theyre made up of only 3-4 polygons!
Yeah I had the detail turned down a bit for that game, that's all
Poor Old Spike
24 Aug 07, 05:58
...commenting on your ladder status will impress no one, as beta testing is simply not about that....I don't think you'll get far with "you should have contacted me" comments, and insulting the game probably won't do it either. ;)
Ha ha ha, I've never got on with the Battlefront bosses anyway (they banned me from the BF forum 4 years ago for being un-politically correct), so I couldn't care less whether I'm a CMSF tester or not mate, why should I , it's not as if they actually pay their testers do they?
As for ladder status "impressing no one",I would have thought they'd want all the ladder hotshots with expertise they could find,rather than in-house yes-men, then the game wouldn't have been prematurely released with more bugs in it than fleas on a hound dawgs back, duh.. :)
Anyway my offer to test still stands but now I've decided they'll have to pay me for it, I mean if they were mug enough to ban me, I'm certainly not going to be mug enough to test for free, I only do what my pet rats tell me to .. ;)
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rat.jpg
Well, based on the screenshots provided it all looks bland and cut & paste, unless we're talking about a 5 yr old game system here.
I was expecting more depth, the units still just don't seem to be in the terain but on it.
Oh well, no biggie: you'll either like the game or not. :D
ALthough Mick your Desert Fox "battle" squirrel would fit in most nicely!
Poor Old Spike
24 Aug 07, 14:45
your Desert Fox "battle" squirrel would fit in most nicely!
Yes, I call him Private Nuts..
Incidentally I've decided its not worthwhile or logical me doing any more Shock Force posts until they de-bug it and polish it up, say in a year or two, so in the meantime I'll stick with old WW2 CM.. :)
I am far less concerned about the graphics than I am about BF leaving out so many great things from CMX1... If this engine is the wave of the future for CM then I agree with NL. In all my years of CMing I never got into a 1st level zoom for the pleasure of graphics. If eye-candy is supposed to be a big push for CMx2 then I am concerned about all of the more important things that may be left out. There are a ton of eye-candy games out there, but what set CM apart was it's unique style and approach, and attempt at accuracy.
Mad Russian
27 Aug 07, 22:49
Yeah, I know...but don't forget that these are the same guys that invented CMx1...so, they'll do what's right with CMx2. I have faith.
I'm not a big fan of real time though.
I know that battles are fought in real time, especially tactical battles, but there is an element of planning, and all the guys knowing what the plan is supposed to be etc., that is the missing part of the real time puzzle to me. So, I end up pausing alot, and that for me, at least, kills the whole reason for real time in the first place.
In a real battle, real time works because you command at most 10 people. A Bn Commander gives orders to at most 5 company commanders. A Company commander gives orders to at most 5 platoon commanders. A Platoon commander gives orders to at most 5 squad leaders. A squad leader gives orders to at most 10 men and normally just 2 fireteam leaders of which he may be one of.
See a pattern here????
In real time games you may have to give orders to 40 squads, weapons systems or vehicles. See why I have a problem with that system being used to prortay the tactical combat model?
Let's keep WeGo in there somewhere please...just for those of us that think that is the way to go....
Good Hunting.
MR
Yeah, i agree with my russian countryman, the WeGo system is the best one, thats why the CM series are so appealing (and yeah, graphics in CM1 and CM2 were nothing fancy, but nevertheless, they were still much better than what we have now). I didnt know that the same team developed CMSF as CM 1, and I want to say: Shame on you guys. Even the gameplay in this new game is not as good as that first CM title.
(and yeah, graphics in CM1 and CM2 were nothing fancy, but nevertheless, they were still much better than what we have now).
Huh. I find that statement a bit surprising. (I don't have CM:SF and won't form my own opinion until many patches from now.) Why do you say that the graphics of the old games were actually better than the graphics of the new one?
John
I hate the interface, while the game aint all that bad. The old right click commands worked better. Why oh why couldnt they couldnt they have used the right click to bring up menus that could then be used to bring up the sub menus, just like hitting the windows start button does. Seems like they couldnt be arsed to think about this and none of the so called expert beta testers noticed it either.
All modern games should be able to be played fluently with a Mouse. Anyway, it lacks depth. I soon got fed up with only having the same units time after time. Funny, I'm still playing CM and have stopped playing SF feeling that I have completed it and theres nothing left for me in it.
Maybe thats just me though? Oh and I'm fed up woth the BF boys ramming it down my throat that I HAVE to like it better than the last one. Sorry, I dont.
1.03 didn't fix as much as I had hoped. It did make it somewhat more playable, but there are still a lot of pathfinding and LOS issues at the core. I am starting to think that what I'm seeing is fundamental design decisions. Right now the game is a little less frustrating than 1.02, but that may not be saying much. I find myself drawn back to CMBB and CMAK.
ALso went back and looked at board activity on CMBO release and the board was much more active back then. The CMSF board is still somewhat active, but can go an hour without a post in the middle of the day. And its mostly the same dozen or so people posting. That is not a good sign.
Even ignoring the game's subject matter, I am left to wonder if CMSF and more importantly if CM x 2 (even when both are fully patched) are really games/game designs that I will want to play on a long term basis, comparable to CM x 1.
There have been serious concerns raised about WEGO, as the new engine appears to have been designed primarily for RT play.
Is PBEM play a realistic option with 14 mb files?
How much will we lose from what we had in CM x 1? We already know that the scope will be much smaller--both in terms of number of units in play/available for play, and the subject that is covered in each release. We know that QB options are less than in CM x 1.
Will the Tac AI and/or pathfinding present no improvement over--or be even worse than in--CM x 1?
What's this I hear about unseen terrain abstractions affecting LOS, fire and unit movement?
Will gaming with CM x 2 be more fun than playing CMBB or CMAK?
Time should tell and your individual mileage may vary...
Even ignoring the game's subject matter, I am left to wonder if CMSF and more importantly if CM x 2 (even when both are fully patched) are really games/game designs that I will want to play on a long term basis, comparable to CM x 1.
There have been serious concerns raised about WEGO, as the new engine appears to have been designed primarily for RT play.
Is PBEM play a realistic option with 14 mb files?
How much will we lose from what we had in CM x 1? We already know that the scope will be much smaller--both in terms of number of units in play/available for play, and the subject that is covered in each release. We know that QB options are less than in CM x 1.
Will the Tac AI and/or pathfinding present no improvement over--or be even worse than in--CM x 1?
What's this I hear about unseen terrain abstractions affecting LOS, fire and unit movement?
Will gaming with CM x 2 be more fun than playing CMBB or CMAK?
Time should tell and your individual mileage may vary...All good questions that hard-core CMers want to know. It seems BF may have violated a very basic marketing principle - do surveys, which they appear not to have done! If they had surveyed their not-too-small CM public they would have found out our wants and needs, and if what they had planned was in line with them.
Nemesis Lead
05 Sep 07, 15:17
All good questions that hard-core CMers want to know. It seems BF may have violated a very basic marketing principle - do surveys, which they appear not to have done! If they had surveyed their not-too-small CM public they would have found out our wants and needs, and if what they had planned was in line with them.
They also violated a simple human principle......after you give a person something you can't take it away!
CMX2 may have some graphics improvements, no borg spotting, and a few other things but.....we have also given up literally dozens of things that were included in CMX1!
I SOOO wanted to like this game but I prefer CMX1! :cry:
Wow! Looks like the fan base melt down may be starting over at the BFC forums. I smell some bannings coming up quickly.
Per Battlefront, the long and the short of it, at least for them--and as long as they can keep the store open (which I hope they do):
"CMx2 is what we're using for the next 5 years. Obviously there will be evolutionary changes, but that's all."
The link:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002901;p=2
We'll be anxiously watching the repairs and the evolution.
Here's an example of a problem that still persists in version 1.03:
The number one thing bothering me right now - just quit a game because of it, absolutely frustrating. It's happened in both of the scenarios I've played today, and it seems completely unavoidable in MOUT.
Squads don't stop moving when they're taking fire/casualties. I had a squad moving under "quick" from point A to point B in an urban environment - as they turned a corner, each one of them in turn was mowed down by an enemy squad that was lying prone 10 feet away.
Number 1 - you see people 10 feet away from you. My squad never spotted the enemy squad - though I knew they were there because of muzzleflashes. They can spot a hidden ATGM team 500 meters away from them, but they don't spot a gaggle of syrians laying in the road *RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM*
Number 2 - the movement order was never cancelled, or halted. The entire squad, to the last man, walked into the ambush.
Number 3 - none of my men ever stop to return fire in this case, even when they spot the enemy team. If you HAVE to keep moving, why not fire while on the move to at least supress whoever's shooting at you? Better yet, why the hell are you running towards a pile of bodies and the sound of machinegun fire a couple of feet away from you?
This doesn't happen just at short distance, either. I *always* have to cancel the move orders myself. Issue a "move" order and observe that even though your men are getting cut down, they continue to stroll along like they're on a quiet patrol. No stopping, no return fire, no seeking cover. Absolute vapid nonsense.
Link:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002909
Double Deuce
07 Sep 07, 03:22
Number 1 - you see people 10 feet away from you. My squad never spotted the enemy squad - though I knew they were there because of muzzleflashes. They can spot a hidden ATGM team 500 meters away from them, but they don't spot a gaggle of syrians laying in the road *RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM*
I had something similar. I had a squad walking down the middle of the road when a Syrian sniper crawls out of the ditch alongside of the road (to their front) crawls between the legs of my squad leader, down the road into the ditch on the other side, no one shot at him or even seemed to acknowledge his presence. Unfortunately didn't get a screenshot, was was too busy thinking "wth".
Ive had guys stand right next to the enemy in a building, both staring at each other without firing and my men doing nothing until I told them to fire.
It's what they call a staring contest, first to blink gets shot.
I posted this earlier at KG:
After reading the posts about the lack of combat "aggressiveness" & ability of the US forces to see/shoot at the Syrian "enemy" there can be only 1 reason in my opinion- Civilians.
BFC said that to compensate for the overwhelming power of the US & to keep the US player from just flattening everything in sight they would make the Syrian "combatants" blend into the civilian population & un-spotable until that "enemy unit" did something to warrant closer inspection. (Just carrying weapons around does not qualify apparently)
This "can't/don't shoot peaceful civilians" rule seems to have been implemented with a heavy hand and from my take just hasn't been incorporated very well.
Player comments about US soldiers: just standing idly next to "enemy" units, watching an "enemy" unit crawl right thru them and, not being able to see the enemy "shooting at you from 10 feet away" seems to confirm this.
Cleary BF has not been able to define for the Tac A.I. exactly what is an "active" enemy or when they become identifiable.
The enemy unit crawling thru a friendly unit suggests that at the time the A.I. considered the "enemy" unit to be a civilian having taken no seen aggressive action "yet" and therefore not a threat and thus stopping the US forces from reacting to it. Same for standing next to an enemy or shooting at you “unseen,” any previously "enemy" units are now "blended" in with the peaceful civilians and the US "can't shoot civilians" rule pops into effect with wild abandon.
I bet the game concept of militia just popping in & out engaging the US forces then blending quickly into the surrounding peaceful population sounded good at the time but, it seems to not be working to put it mildly.
Poor Old Spike
08 Sep 07, 19:57
I bet the game concept of militia just popping in & out engaging the US forces then blending quickly into the surrounding peaceful population sounded good at the time but, it seems to not be working to put it mildly.
Ha ha ha, and it sometimes doesn't work for the blenders in real life.. :)
"There are numerous individuals on the road...Take 'em out"..
http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/combatvideos/CASFallujah.wmv
If they wanted that kind of game theres a subtle lack of civilians in SF. If this were the case and they had accounted for civilians then you would be penalised for killing them by indiscriminately firing at buildings etc. So it remains a bug, one which mkes the game eminently less playable.
Hopefully they will have it all ironed out on the SF test bed by the time a ww2 game appears.
Well of course BF wasn't going to (& didn't) put any civilians in the game. Just like there are no cars, cows or kitchen tables: you're expected to just "imagine" they are there.
So, in SF BFC wants you to imagine all those peaceful civilians wandering up & down the streets in which the "enemy" units are "blending" into. (Can you see the A.I. trying to handle crowds of civilians scattering everywhere when the shooting starts when it can't even handle a few units now?)
I'm not sure how you'd rationally go about penalizing a player in CM for "collateral damage." Does blowing up a building with just 1 enemy unit count or a house with 12 in it?
I just think that they didn't get the A.I. spotting of / blending in of "combative" civilian units worked out.
I think you are right as some guys have reported improvements when turning of the Civilian density. Maybe that is somehow at the core of the problem???
For testing the game and saving me lots of money and confessing( about all the swearing that would of went on).
:smoke:
For PBEM and WEGO players, it appears that the earliest that we might have a reasonably quality product to play is version 1.04. See:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002959
The waypoint problems are supposed to be fixed for WEGO play in patch 1.04.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.