Stick a fork in it - CM is done.

[MKSheppard]

Link (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003380;p=3)

From BFC.com

Well, I'll stick with this discussion a bit longer event though it is largely a pointless rehashing of many previous threads. Some people have long since made up their minds about the direction we've gone in and nothing short of spending 3 years recoding the entire engine will make them happy. Since there is no way in Hell we're going to do that again, even if we agreed that we screwed the pooch (and we most definitely do NOT), such people should probably just stop thinking about Combat Mission and start looking for some other game system to play. CMx1's system is dead and buried from a development standpoint and it will never be seen again by us. CMx2 will be the basis of every game we ever make from now on. Even CMx3, if we even call it that, will be based on CMx2 code. You don't have to like this, but you must accept it as reality or you'll drive us all crazy

Personally, I don't really care if some of you gamers didn't see all the problems that were inherent in the previous game engine's approach to simulation. Charles and I had to work with the game guts and that's really what matters. The inherently turn based approach was a nightmare to work with. So many things were hacked and shoehorned into CMx1 that we couldn't do more than make minor tweaks to the engine as time went on. This was partly because of the way the engine was coded, but it was in no small part due to the limitations of simulating reality (which works in real time) in an inherently artificial way (turn based). Again, you can disagree with this until you are blue in the face, but it won't change the facts. You're wrong, we're right and that's all there is too it.

Now, what is up for grabs is a person's personal opinion as to whether they like the results better than what they had before. It's personal preference and I can't say someone is wrong for their opinions any more than they can say I am wrong for having my own. This is why I get a pretty good laugh out of someone trying to sound smart by telling me that RealTime is useless, not fun, a complete waste of time, etc. In that person's opinion, perhaps, but in my opinion it is exactly the opposite. Most of our testers agree, even though nearly all started out very cautious of RT. So when someone tells me that their opinion of such things equates to fact, I can't help but think that person is stepping over the line and becoming a self righteous bigot. Again, you don't have to like CM:SF RealTime, but you can not tell others that they aren't enjoying it when if they in fact are. It just doesn't work.

:violin:

you ****ed up big time on this BFC; I'm no longer buying any more of your games after this frigging fiasco -- I expected Combat Mission from you guys, not "GI Combat XLVI"

If you want to go chase the idiot real time crowd; go a head; I'll take a close look at Kooios' Panzer Command series games -- while they may not be as good as the original CMBB/AK, they're at least truly moddable, someone's actually gotten M-60A1s in it. :clown:

Now, I must go and make backups of my original CMBB/AK cds, so that I can play them long after SF has been quietly forgotten.

[Geordie]

They are right, its a matter of opinion. They dont think they fecked up, I do. CMSF has not been on my HD for 5 weeks now and I have no intention of ever playing it again, buying any module or even buying a ww2 version.

The game is dull for me, the scope is far too focused and in RT you cannot control more than a few troops.

[Nemesis Lead]

Funny, you would think that with CMX2's supposed more flexible system that they could make some rapid improvements to what is still a game that is not playable.

With a lot of work (and incorporation of CMX1 features!) CMX2 could be good. However, Battlefront seems stubborn as a mule and is not supporting its game the way it should.

I am sure a comedy of errors conspired to make CMX2 the flop that it is. Time will tell whether or not I will every buy one of their games again.

Next time, I will certainly wait for a review before I buy! :angry:

[Lurker]

Amazing. All of us CMx1ers are wrong and he's right. This joker has it backwards, but apparently is too stubborn to ever see it. CM1 had a big following and launched numerous clubs, populated in large number by adults who had the opportunity to PBEM without having to look for realtime opponents. If I wanted realtime I would load up command and conquer or starcraft or one of 10,000 other realtime games.

The thing about CM1 that set it apart from all of the others was its unique approach. It's fan base was nothing short of fanatical. I marvel at the marketing decision to disregard the howls of protest from this fanatic fan base while attempting to stuff a different product down our throats and telling us at the same time that it's better. In essence, we are told we are wrong for loving the previous system and wanting continued tweaks and new modules, but are apparently too stupid to see it, and if we don't like it we can go f**k ourselves. After all, it was a difficult system to work with ( call 1-800-boo-hooo for that problem) so let's just blow-off the entire CMx1 community. Yes, brilliant marketing indeed.

Perhaps it didn't occur to them to expand with this opportunity by taking on new programmers to code the "newer and better" engine while keeping the rest of their public happy at the same time with other CMx1 efforts. The best thing they could do now is sell the CM1 engine to some group that wants to run with it.

Yes, we are all wrong. Don't you feel better for knowing that?

[2054172]

Well thanks toall you guys that bought CMx2 I saved money and time. This reminds me ofthe board game wars....designers etc.

Back in the old days board game companies pissed off some of their designers...Avalon Hill, SPI etc..... these unemployed and disgruntled workers started a company named Yaquinto Productions.The game mechaninics were great and I have a whole bunch of their games. Then they ate into the market of the big boys and got bought out, by Avalon Hill again. Avalon Hill did not even try to improve their games by adopting some new ideas. Where are the big guys today?

So one would say what in God's green earth has this got to do with anything.
I can only hope some of the Game designers of CMx1 go on their own and start building a PBEM type game that CMx1 is like, so we can leave battle front in the dust with the other big boys.

I am also, now off to burn copies of CMBB and CMAK so I have them to play well into the future. As I have found out there is a large following of these games in Eastern Europe....seems like the Poles and Chechs are big time into CMBB and CMAK. I guess they like killing Germans and Russians either way.

If the quote is from BFC.com then all I have to say is ......" guys get a helmut because life is ruff"

Wayne Welden:smoke:

[Mad Russian]

SPI, AH and now BFC. All so smart and all knowing about what gamers want. 2 out of 3 of them are gone the third one is starting to teeter. But then of course these are old AH guys and learned their marketing from The Monarch Publishing Class of Marketing 101...

I'll vote with my wallet just like I did when SPI and AH started putting out games that weren't worth buying.

The way I see it BFC is trying for some different markets and might make it. But not with my money in this kind of a marketing atmosphere.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jwb3]

While I have nothing good to say about BFC at this point, and wouldn't buy CM:SF if it was the most perfect release in the world, I really wish it were possible to know whether there's any objective validity to this part of the quote:
Personally, I don't really care if some of you gamers didn't see all the problems that were inherent in the previous game engine's approach to simulation. Charles and I had to work with the game guts and that's really what matters. The inherently turn based approach was a nightmare to work with. So many things were hacked and shoehorned into CMx1 that we couldn't do more than make minor tweaks to the engine as time went on. This was partly because of the way the engine was coded, but it was in no small part due to the limitations of simulating reality (which works in real time) in an inherently artificial way (turn based).
As one of my friends likes to say, "Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day..." :cheeky: Just because it comes from the mouth of Steve (I assume, based on the usual attitude it displays) doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

But we have no way to know. So what I would so dearly love would be the chance to be a fly on the wall, watching them do their stuff, trying to figure out whether what we're asking of them was actually so nightmarish as Steve makes it out to be.


John

[MKSheppard]

CMSF has not been on my HD for 5 weeks now and I have no intention of ever playing it again, buying any module or even buying a ww2 version.

It's been on my hard drive for 16 weeks; and no, I don't like it either.

In particular, their intrusive copy protection scheme; which caused me problems when I completely upgraded my old system from a creaking Athlon XP 2600+ to a Intel Core Duo Q6600. It's a good thing that I bought new everything including HDDs, and didn't salvage parts from my old computer because I had to hook up my old computer to the internet AGAIN to "unlock" CMSF from my old computer, so I could play it on the new one.

And silly me, I was expecting CMSF to play smoother and faster on my new dreadnought rig -- Silly BFC, you fecked up with the 8800 Ge Force coding...nevermind that you could have gone to NVIDIA's compatibility center with early alphas of CMSF to see if there were problems with CMSF.


Basically NVIDIA has a center where they have thousands of possible configurations of computers, and where you can test your program on said thousands of configurations to see if there are any problems -- it's why they've crushed ATI -- they've worked hard at compatibility and fixing problems.

But no, BFC didn't take advantage of this; and the game even after 4 patches runs choppily on my nearly brand new rig unless I turn everything down to the barest minimums :angry:

The game is dull for me, the scope is far too focused and in RT you cannot control more than a few troops.

I don't mine the scope, or the "storyline" behind it; I like modern warfare almost as much as I like WW2, and I suspect a lot of people would have converted from WW2 to Modern warfare if the game control system had been any good.

1.) Real Time Focus - Caused WEGO to become a poor bastard stepchild of itself.

It's now virtually impossible to play realistic games in a reasonable amount of time due to the deletion of the blue bar "fast forward to end" feature. It makes long end marches around an excruciating feeling.

I never subscribed to the "mythical blue bar makes things better" crowd; it just made the game a lot more playable, because you could fast forward through the humdrum parts, like road marches, or waiting for the enemy to attack.

Now, if you try to make WEGO once again FEASIBLE within the "always suffer through 60 seconds, even when nothing is happening" paradigm by having the scenario start with units near or in contact; the game is essentially over very fast, due to the high lethality of modern weapons.

Also, as others have said, it's now impossible to command anything other than a closely grouped platoon.

2.) The abolition of the UI elements which made CMx1 work so well; like the right click context menu which showed the commands available to that selected unit. Simple, clean, and easy to teach someone; and BEST OF ALL the keyboard shortcuts always stayed the same.

Of course, right clicking and selecting your command was a bit slow for the ALMIGHTY REAL TIME GOD, so it had to go. And furthermore; fixed commands slowed down the game, so we had to feck it up more; so now we have:

U I O ..................... Top Row of Commands
J K L ...................... Middle Row
M , . ...................... Bottom Row

Y ........................... Move Command
H........................... Target Command

Yes; that is so INTUITIVE.

3.) Quick Battles are retarded and stupid -- goodbye to one of CMx1's greatest selling points.

[kawaiku]

Why is everyone burning their CMx1 copies?? I don't get it. Like, are ya'll afraid to lose them or something? BTW, you guys finally influenced me not to buy hehe. And I just got CMBO which is totally awesome, so I am complete.

Btw, seeing as how you guys wish for CMx1 to get resurrected, do you guys remember that game put out by Matrix games that almost had the same look and feel of CMx1 but with somewhat better graphics. What do you guys think of that? Any hope for the underdog lol!?

Btw, I got this random idea for a map that we could all do around here. I'll post my idea in the scenario creator section thingy.

[Palantir]

Is this how BFC expects to keep any fan base by telling them they are stupid for playing their own games and wanting more of the same? :nuts:

As someone previously mentioned- if I had wanted to play a RT game I wouldn't be playing CMx1 a WEGO system!

And as far as all those problems with CMx1 and going to CMx2 instead: Quote- "I don't really care if some of you gamers didn't see all the problems that were inherent in the previous game engine's approach to simulation... You're wrong, we're right and that's all there is too it."
Even with all those "problems" the designers made CMx1 work. So well that so many of us were actually PLAYING them & forming clubs to boot! Can that be said for CMSF?

What's so disturbing about this entire deal is that BFC arrogantly REALLY assumes the CMx1 crowd will buy their "CM-RT" games just because it has the CM label. If ever there was a need for a company to be handed a marketing "here's your sign"- "Stupid" now is that time. :violin:

You know... this is like Peter Jackson, director of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, telling all the fans that they are idiots for likeing his "old" movies because he wants to make "The Hobbit" in 3D!

[Bertram]

The disregard that BFC is showing to it's long time customers and fans is really unbelievable! We've got to hope that another company or group of individuals steps up to the plate and continues the WEGO form of game play. I can get into some RT games but I save those urges for our PS3. I bought SF fairly quickly after it came out. I enjoy the change of scenery, time period, and equipment but I want WEGO.

Certainly there have been a large number of websites devoted to playing CMx1 but I fear that the total number of them might not attract additional WEGO developers. Especially when compared to the success the RT folks are having.

There are some bright scenario developers in our ranks. Is there a group of WEGO CM playing programmers that could consider purchasing CMx1 from BF, the old crap that it is to BF now, that could enhance and refresh the game as a low profit hobby business. Is it possible? Another company, much wiser than BF, might just see such an effort and cater to our needs with a real WEGO CMx2?

Battlefront, you reek of arrogance and deserve what all businesses should get when they forget their roots and disrespect their customers. NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.......................... Well Steve, at least you can always go back to violating your dog!:eek:

[2054172]

Bertram good to see you have not fallen off the planet.

Oh by the way have you noticed that ER chaser is top dog....why doesnNemesis still have the title/ Maybe you could fix that.;):smoke:

[KGPanzerschrecK]

Language like this - "So when someone tells me that their opinion of such things equates to fact, I can't help but think that person is stepping over the line and becoming a self righteous bigot" Is what has always kept me away from that cesspool they call a forum over there. They claim they dont have a problem if you have a legit beef with one of their games, but the fact is that if you say anything out of line and you'll get shouted down in no uncertain terms/language. Ive seen some very unprofessional and downright childish behavior out of the people over there and quite frankly i really dont understand how they have stayed in buisness.

[KG_Jag]

Look at the push back from the loyal CM x 1 community. Check around the web and see just how dead the CMSF community is. Even the Battlefront forum has so many fires burning on it from less than thrilled customers, that posts from Battlefront management like the one that initiated this thread have become almost common.

The alarm clock is screaming in Battlefront's ears as loud as the sirens from a squadron of Stukas. Will Battlefront ever wake up? Will they even allow themselves to hear it before they have to file for Chapter 11? CM x 2/Battlefront failed at attracting significant numbers of the FPS and RTS crowd, while at the same time alienating much of its once loyal fan base. It squandered most of its reputation as a different kind of wargaming company with the late alpha/early beta release of an also incomplete CMSF (after fronting for a similarly problematic release of ToW). I would love for Battlefront to prove me wrong, but the chances of that appear very low at present and dropping each day.

Yes--someone doesn't get it. I'll let you guess who those folks are.

In time and with enough patches CMSF might even be a decent game--but it will still be only a second cousin of CM x 1 and of minimal interest to those of us who highly value WEGO, real PBEM play and classic CM QB's.

BTW: if you buy CMSF, I recommend that you pick up the Paradox version, as I did. These are among the reasons why:

1. You will get to see the hideous version 1.0 right out of the box.

2. There is no e-license with that version.

3. It is now in the bargain bin at many retailers.

4. It comes in a box, which you can use to protect your CM x 1 CD's.

[MKSheppard]

It's also interesting to note that Combat Missions Campaigns is deader than ****.

It's no longer even showing up on their front page; it's quietly been shunted into oblivion, which makes no sense. Because if it was EVER released; it would be an instant best-seller; as just about everyone who bought CMBB would buy it.

The reason I can see for CMC being killed off is because BFC doesn't want to get the egg on their face of the "old, clunky" CMBB engine actually outselling their "next generation" Sh!t Force engine.

[Mad Russian]

You know... this is like Peter Jackson, director of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, telling all the fans that they are idiots for likeing his "old" movies because he wants to make "The Hobbit" in 3D!

Um...no...what he actually said was, "it will be in Real Time and YOU WILL LIKE IT!!"


Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

It's also interesting to note that Combat Missions Campaigns is deader than ****.

It's no longer even showing up on their front page; it's quietly been shunted into oblivion, which makes no sense. Because if it was EVER released; it would be an instant best-seller; as just about everyone who bought CMBB would buy it.

The reason I can see for CMC being killed off is because BFC doesn't want to get the egg on their face of the "old, clunky" CMBB engine actually outselling their "next generation" Sh!t Force engine.

There is a group of gamers working on a project called Op CM. This is a human run form of what I assume CMC would have looked like.

The main problem we ran into is that in real life battles at all levels have one thing in common. They are very unbalanced. The attacker normally has very high odds in their favor or they don't attack.

Offensive operations come in three very distinct phases.

1) Overwhelming attacks on the defenders lines with crushing force.

2) Breakthrough and exploitation where the meeting engagements so near and dear to us all are found.

3) Containment when the defender begins to build a line that starts to hold because he's getting better odds and the attacker is running out of steam.

What we've found so far is that the phase 1 battles aren't what gamers want to play. Let's see....that's why we playtest things(like CMSF maybe)...and we have started another round of playtesting for beginning the Operations in CM at the phase 2 stage.

I believe in CMC playtesting they also found this to be the case. One of their major selling points was the ability of CMC to play out those battles for you without your actually having to have spent that time doing it yourself. This is where I think they ran into trouble and what seems to have killed that project.

We are now trying a different approach. We start the CM Operations with the major assault battles already done. Where the defender is rushing forward with his reinforcements and the attacker is pouring through the gap.

What we are hoping for is a system that can be run quickly and efficiently with actual manpower.

The list of Campaigns that we feel can benefit from such a system are almost endless. All that's needed is a very intense phase 2 and 3 time period to make the battles interesting for CM gamers. Here is a partial listing we've looked at. It is by no means all inclusive.

Khar'kov - Spring 1943
Kursk - Prokhorovka
Debrecen, Hungary - possibly the largest tank battle in WWII
Khar'kov - Summer 1944
Destruction of Army Group Center
Battle of the Bulge
Reichswald
Siegfied Line
Battle for Germany - Ruhr Pocket
Gazzalla Line Battles - North Africa
Hurtgen Forest
Normandy - 21st Army Group AO
Normandy - US AO

These will all feature an operational map. They will feature teams of gamers pitted against each other. More than likely composed of site teams. They will highlight the abilities of the commanders and the units themselves. Recon units are very valuable in Op CM and not to be just thrown away in the classic CM recon mission, "recon by death".

The OOB's for the units are setup in Battalion strength. They are then tracked as you go through the process and as you lose units they stay gone. Some operations are large enough to get reinforcements during the length of the operation and others are not.

The size of the operation is limited only by the ability and willingness of the administrator.

The number of gamers is not set per side. A battle has exactly 30 days to run it's course from the day it starts. After that it's over. It can end early but not run over the time limit. If at the end of the time limit both sides still want to fight there then the battle resets into another fight. This allows for real time application in the operational sense. There is no waiting around for other gamers to finish a game before another round is started. Battles are not fought in rounds. That's not what happens in real life and it shouldn't be what happens in our simulation of real life operations either. If a gamer drops out for whatever reason that side puts another player in his place. Whatever happens at the end of the 30 days OR LESS if the game is abandoned the battle will be resolved.

The units are kept track of on an operational map. Just like in real life. Also as in real life there will be times when the conclusion of a particular battle will be very important. Like when you are trying to keep a pocket from closing as you try to retreat out of it before the jaws come slamming shut.

Things like reduced ammo in the pocket, allocation of artillery assets to a battle that stay allocated until the battle is over, air support, operational movement allowances to move units into location on the operational map and operational points that allow a side the ability to move and fight with only so many units at a time.

These are the things that we are playtesting. We found in round 1 of our playtesting that certain things didn't work. BUT we are now confident that the things we found that did work are more likely to generate balanced and intense CM combat that the first try. So while our first efforts showed us what didn't work, they also have showed us very likely what might.

The death of CMx1 by BFC seems to have been grossly exaggerated! While they seem to be trying to throw the baby out with the bath water the midwife caught it and is trying to keep it healthy. Too bad the parents aren't trying to help but this can be done with or without BFC's help.

My personal opinion is, that the fork may not be ready to go into CMx1 just yet...it seems pretty healthy. Especially when you compare it to CMx2.....


Good Hunting.

MR

[Taktik]

Personally. I don't really care if some of you gamers didn't see all the problems that were inherent in the previous game engine's approach to simulation.
I find this statement hilarious in Steve’s little diatribe. For those of you who have been around CM since the very very early days, when BO was but a demo, there was a rapidly growing crowd, CM-fanboys I called them, that cried to the heavens that CM was the greatest, most realistic, most novel, wonderful, WWII small unit tactical game to come along. And for the most part, I agreed with them.

The funny part about this statement quoted above, is that if ANYONE, ANYONE, so much as dared point out a flaw back then, or an issue with the holy CM, he would be pummeled, bashed and flamed.

Now, if I read correctly, Steve outright says that CM was flawed to begin with and can’t possibly depict WWII action the same way a RT game can. Anyone that thinks this is a fool.

LOL!!! (That is laugh out loud for you non-MMO’ers J).

He cuts the legs right out from under the thousands of grogs that defended the untouchable CM from those who dared speak out against them over the years.

They are kidding themselves if they think RT is vastly more “realistic” in representing the real-thing. SF is still just a stupid game. You can still jump around and control any troops you want. RT forces you to make decisions quicker, true, but you can only control a few troops at one time, meanwhile, troops elsewhere are taken over by the AI, and we all know how the AI can be in games.

BF wants to sell the game to the military perhaps, or cater to the RTS’ers. It doesn’t seem to work in either regard. IMO, if you want to cater to the military, you either have to be grand in scope, such as Decisive Action, or feature higher level maneuver elements in an abstract manner, like Tac-Ops, or even more, go down to the crew level, like Steel Beasts. SF is trying to forge its own niche with mixed results at best.

I am greatly disappointed with the BF attitude, but at the same time, I am immensely grateful to them for providing many years of fantastic gaming and community. Sad, the way it has gone.

[KG_Cloghaun]

I was less than impressed with BFC's handling of their fanbase recently & echo pretty much what most of you have said in this thread.

I used to be excited about CMx2. Better graphics, more whistles & bells, an overall improved game engine- and lots & lots of different modules being pumped out - Ghettysburg, Stalingrad, The Somme, Hurtgen Forest, Nato vs Warsaw, Korea, etc.

No...let's have the U.S. invade Syria...:rolleyes:

I have a question:

Let's assume that for the most part, CMSF rolled out with little or no problems. Say by 1.02 everything was fixed. And let's also say that everyone loves the idea of invading Syria.

How is a person supposed to actually control an infantry company with tanks, artillery support, etc, in real time, in a 3D enviornment, with terrain changes, los issues, drop-down command menus...?

I used to play Close Combat (real-time), and that was hard enough on a 2D top-down map.


@ Mad Russian-

Your Campaign sounds very interesting. I'm sure there's many KG members who would welcome the chance to play. Please keep us in mind when it's ready.

[Bertram]

http://p099.ezboard.com/fwebandofbrothersfrm51.showMessage?topicID=737.top ic

Good comment from the BoB board:

As y'all know I have been recommending that people buy CM2 as it is a good game. I have now completed downloading and playing every scenario I could find for CMSF. I could only find about 60 scenarios in the known universe to date btw. That tells you a lot right there since in the 6+ years on CM I doubt if I've gotten thru 10% (maybe 1%!) of the available CM scenarios.

CMSF is a terrific and unique game for playing modern urban combat. However, I find it very hard/impossible to play wego as so much can happen in a minute in these small maps and with the highly lethal firepower.

Much has been said about the weird things your AI troops do. And it's true. Left to their own devices for a minute, you could lose the game.

I found it MUCH more enjoyable to play real time with frequent pauses as soon as I heard an explosion, gunshots etc. I almost always found it vital to issue many orders over the course of a minute just to keep units alive.

I only found one scenario that was extraordinarily good: "Aleppo International." You had "paratroops" that landed all over the place in sections. You had to first get them organized into squads amidst possible small ambushes by irregulars. You had some limited ammo supply in vehicles that you had to figure on how to allocate. You had to cross an open runway and then engage in an urban assault to get the the airport buildings proper ih order to capture it for follow-on forces. Aleppo is an excellent scenario that showcases all that is great about CM2. It's the only scenario I want to replay.

Some of the other scenrios were good, but once you played them once...

Others, especially those in open terrain get very repetitive and boring as they are won or lost by placement of missile teams that kill everything and anything at long range.

I think one of the reasons Aleppo was so good is that it was at night (I think) and missiles were not an important part. It was almost like a WW2 Stalingrad scenario.

My conclusion was that CM2 scenarios in which missiles, airpower and massive artillery (>120mm) were not important were the better ones.

My concern is that CM2 has very limited choices of weapons systems. You have pretty much the same weapons all the time. The oppo forces have the same weapons every time. Part of the pleasure in CM was poring over the units stats to figure out what your oppo may buy and what you should buy. That's gone in CM2.

I don't see how the upcoming Marine module is going to be much different. So, we'll be playing the same boring type of scenarios with US troops in different patterned uniforms and maybe a new vehicle or two? Big deal.

As for the WW2 version of CM2 I am not holding my breath. CM2 is not CM. It is a completely different game. If you don't like the current CM2, I doubt if you'll like a WW2 version. The scale, the scope the detail is just too different. Playing CM2 reminds me of a 3-D version of the venerable Close Combat real time games.

People can struggle their whole lives to produce a great movie or computer game. These guys got lucky first time out. Maybe that is why there seems to be little recognition or understanding of WHY CM was so successful, and WHY it has engaged the passions of so many fans. Instead it's as if the developers want to kick their golden goose out the door as fast as possible and spit on it at the same time.

It would be more understandable if they simply said, "look we can't make money on CM, we need to have lives, get married, send our kids to college etc. - we have to have a more profitable product and business model."

The focus could then be on how this highly successful proven system could be more profitable. But, instead we keep hearing about how CM technically sucked and how CM2 is technically superior.

That's like saying that a particular movie is much better cos it was shot on innovative new equipment using better special FX with better deifinition. Apart from a few techies, nobody gives a c#$p about the technical aspects. there are only 3 things people care about: Immersive entertainment value, immersive entertainment value and immersive entertainment value (and in this case, gameplay enjoyment).

Clearly, the market for CM2 is NOT the same market as for CM1. Just look at the stunning LACK of websites, clubs, scenarios and mods being generated for CM2. At this point CM will not affect any CM2 profits.

If the developers are really determined to never have anything to do with CM again as they say - and they really feel there is no money in CM as they say, why don't they just release the code to volunteers?



Never say never, I guess. Hopefully we'll (they'll) get beyond this and produce the next game to put a smile on our face!:cool:

[Palantir]

Many good points & some to expand on.



CMSF is a terrific and unique game for playing modern urban combat. However, I find it very hard/impossible to play wego as so much can happen in a minute in these small maps and with the highly lethal firepower.
Well, the same can be said for CMx1, a lot can happen in a minute in urban combat/close combat so there is no difference between CMx1 or CMx2. I guess if you want to micro-manage your troops every second of every turn then CMx2 is your game (although how you could micro-manage an entire company 1:1 scale much less a batt. of troops is beyond me).

Much has been said about the weird things your AI troops do. And it's true. Left to their own devices for a minute, you could lose the game. Not the case in CMx1 as you can usually count on your units to do as ordered (minus incoming fire).

I found it MUCH more enjoyable to play real time with frequent pauses as soon as I heard an explosion, gunshots etc. I almost always found it vital to issue many orders over the course of a minute just to keep units alive.
If you are frequently pausing multipile times every turn while playing CMx2 then you are not really playing an RT game but a jerky second by second game that should be changed to a Wego system... RT means the clock is always running without pauses so if you're constantly pausing it you can't call CMx2 "RT."

[KGPanzerschrecK]

If you are frequently pausing multipile times every turn while playing CMx2 then you are not really playing an RT game but a jerky second by second game that should be changed to a Wego system... RT means the clock is always running without pauses so if you're constantly pausing it you can't call CMx2 "RT."

Well said Kerry. That description sounds an awful lot like a Bastard Child of a WEGO system to me. :rolleyes: :eek: :nuts: :paperbag:

[Geordie]

One of the more fundamental questions for me is that I dont know how well BF did with CMSF. Has it been so succesful that they made a huge profit? Has the partnership with the other company flopped or been a great success?

I do admit that I did enjoy CMSF for what it was, but it wasnt enough for me to buy a Marine module, but BF stated a while back that their marketing indicated that CM was mainly played in single player Vs the AI. So there may well be millions [well a few anyway] of guys out there happily playing the AI and awaiting the marine Module.

I just dont know, for all I know the guys at BF are sitting back and counting their gold, tilting their heads at weird angles and manically laughing in that cartoon villan way.

So wether I like the game or not wont matter to them if they achieved their goal, I just dont know if they have or not?

[Nemesis Lead]

If Battlefront did do well financially with CMSF, it was because of the power of the CMX1 brand. I doubt that they did, however, as the game was in the bargain bin after a month or so.

My guess is that they have seriously damaged their brand. I, for one, will never buy another game from them unless I see a lot of good reviews first. I would even scrutinize a WW2 version very carefully.

BFC makes a big deal out of the 3 or 4 things that are better with CMX2. The overwhelming majority of the game, however, is HUGE step backwards. The funny thing is, BFC ignores its customers and tells them they are wrong! My company pays a lot of money for frank feedback such as that and BFC should actually listen instead of telling customers they are wrong!

Going on the BFC forums these days is funny and sad. Any criticism of CMSF is slapped down by a combination of BFC staff and BFC apologists.

I am starting a CMSF multiplayer game now. The last time I played a multiplayer game, it was unplayable (i.e., there were so many bugs we could not continue as units stopped moving and shooting). My bet is that this will happen again.

[Bertram]

Desire for success and profit may still yet drive BF back down the proper path.;)

CM will not truly be DONE until the players become exhausted with it. Has chess died due to lack of updating???? I'm not saying CMx1 is the same league as chess but for those that like'd Avalon Hill wargames, CM is the natural follow on product. I like to play a little of the frantic RT games but IMO, thinking, learning and employing military tactics with more than one unit is done best with the board turned CM type game.

I still want to do a SF tourney here but continued complaints about PBEM/WEGO even with 1.04 have caused me to pause. They are preparing 1.05 which I hope helps. PONL, please keep us informed how your game proceeds.

Jay, if you'd like to play another SF game by PBEM let me know, I'd like to see it for myself. I have the Paradox, no license needed, version updated to 1.04.

[KG_Jag]

Here are the hope killers for those of us who were looking for CM x 2 to be an improved engine of what is the core of CM x 1--and not a new type of game with a "CM" label slapped on it. Both are recent posts by Battlefront on their own forum:

"CMx1's system is dead and buried from a development standpoint and it will never be seen again by us. CMx2 will be the basis of every game we ever make from now on. Even CMx3, if we even call it that, will be based on CMx2 code. You don't have to like this, but you must accept it as reality or you'll drive us all crazy."

Link to this 12/4/07 post by Steve:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=52;t=003380

and

"As I said in another thread going on presently, WeGo was not an afterthought, but it was always designed to be based on a RealTime engine. The reason for this is that you can have a WeGo option with a RealTime engine, you can not have a RealTime option with a WeGo engine. Moreover, when you have a WeGo (or turn based of any sort) engine you suffer massive limitations in what can be done because real life does not start and stop, rather it continues without respect to a clock. From a programming standpoint this is a VERY important concept, even if it isn't all that apparent to Joe Average gamer. Suffice to say that many of the annoying bits of CMx1 and the lack of improvement in some areas were the direct result of the engine being inherently broken up into chunks of time instead of continuous time.

The idea that WeGo allows for more detail because of no constraints of time is, basically, correct. However, it is less efficient and inherently limited, so sometimes WeGo needs a lot more resources to do things than RealTime. This is especially true for programming. Lots of things that were not in CMx1 could have been added, in theory, but weren't because trying to shoehorn in features that were essentially real time in nature was very difficult to do. Exceptions to rules suck, so the more exceptions needed, the more it sucks to program them

WIth a RealTime engine tons of things are inherently taken care of without extra coding. Real flight path tracking, TacAI remembering things that disappeared for a few seconds, shells landing when they should instead of after the turn ends, etc. Again, it might be possible for a programmer to make it difficult for a player to tell the difference between a WeGo game with a RealTime game, but if one took 5 years to make and the other 3... yeah, he'd notice that for sure Not that I have any idea it would have taken 2 more years to shoehorn RealTime type simulation benefits into a WeGo game system, but I suspect it might.

So in the end it was a choice between making a RealTime engine with a WeGo capability, or making a RealTime engine without WeGo. We never thought of making a WeGo game without RealTime. It simply wasn't a viable or desirable choice for us."

Link to this earlier post also made by Steve earlier on 12/4/07:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=52;t=003379

Thus it is clear that WEGO, formerly the heart of CM x 1, is now the bastard step child and things that go with WEGO, such a PBEM, receive the same lack of concern/priority as does the now shunned WEGO.

As I and many others have said to Battlefront here, on the Battlefront forum and elsewhere: please license the CM x 1 engine to a competent game developer/programmer. If Battlefront is being truthful in saying that they never plan to use CM x 1 again, such a move could only be to their benefit. That is of course unless they fear competition from their own gaming engine that they have decided to abandon in favor of a "better" one.

[Mad Russian]

Desire for success and profit may still yet drive BF back down the proper path.;)



It didn't drive SPI or AH back down the proper path. They are both gone and with much better games to offer than CMSF.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bertram]

It didn't drive SPI or AH back down the proper path. They are both gone and with much better games to offer than CMSF.

Good Hunting.

MR

And I realize it may not redirect BF either. There appears to be a market for what 'we' want. If our numbers are great enough, profit promising enough, someone will fill the void.

If research determines it is too costly to produce the quality we insist upon for the number of games that will be sold, who's going to lose money developing the game? Are there those in our community that have the knowledge and expertise to develop an updated WEGO game system? When you see the labor of love going into all the tournaments/scenarios I just can't help but think one answer lies in the community.

Thoughts? Is this beyond reality?

[KGPanzerschrecK]

.....but BF stated a while back that their marketing indicated that CM was mainly played in single player Vs the AI. So there may well be millions [well a few anyway] of guys out there happily playing the AI and awaiting the marine Module.....

Ask the right people the right questions, and you'll get the right answers. Their so called "Market Research" consisted of them talking to the butt kissers that live on their forums. Most of those clowns do play single player vrs the AI, but thats not representative of the rest of the CM world, thats for sure.

[Palantir]

I can't recall the last time I ever actually played vs the A.I. outside of running quick pre-set situational playtests when developing scenarios- for PBEM!

[KG_Jag]

I seem to recall a poll that was done--I think by the Proving Grounds. It was surprising, if memory serves, that 50% or more of the responders said that they played mostly against the AI.

Even if that is accurate, the most dedicated players and thus most likely to make multiple purchases of games along the line of an improved CM x 1 are all those who frequent sites like this one. Of course those players are the other 50% or so who primarily play against other humans.

Equally important is that a preference to play CM x 1, be it either mostly against the AI or primarily vs. another person, was/is done 100% in WEGO. Where did Battlefront ever get the idea that its customers wanted to switch to a primarily RT game, or one which is reduced in scope--both in terms of force size and massively so in terms of the subject matter coverage? Did Battlefront even care about what its existing customers wanted in CM x 2? It appears that the answer is: not very much.

[Don Maddox]

And I realize it may not redirect BF either. There appears to be a market for what 'we' want. If our numbers are great enough, profit promising enough, someone will fill the void.

That's just it, Bertram, the profit generally isn't promising enough. If it was, you would have a lot more competition in the genre and more new offerings to choose from. This is self-evident.

If research determines it is too costly to produce the quality we insist upon for the number of games that will be sold, who's going to lose money developing the game?


What makes you think anyone will? What makes you think developers are waiting in line to jump into this white hot genre?

Truth is, there are very few still actively developing in this genre. There is some milking of old engines going on, but very few new and truly innovative wargames on the horizon. Why is this? Obviously, there just isn't a big enough community to justify the production costs for putting out new titles. PC wargaming today mostly consists of very small companies working with older engines or indie developers turning out very specialized products.

Are there those in our community that have the knowledge and expertise to develop an updated WEGO game system?


If there are, I welcome them to step up to the plate. There are several programmers on these forums that have attempted to program their own wargames from scratch since they simply aren't finding what they want on store shelves. For the most part, these efforts have quietly faded away as the people involved discover just how difficult it really is to program a game engine from scratch. It's even more difficult to program a good one. Those who have the skills, experience and time required to develop games are, well, doing it. And they aren’t doing it for free.

When you see the labor of love going into all the tournaments/scenarios I just can't help but think one answer lies in the community.


The thought has crossed my mind as well, but I have come to the conclusion this is mostly wishful thinking. Part of the explanation for this lies in the community itself.

If you take a hard look at the FPS, RTS and flight simulation communities, you see some truly remarkable mods created by amateur teams of programmers. Some of these efforts are so good they end up becoming real games in their own right. But those communities tend to have a lot of very computer savvy fans and creating complex mods has become part of the genres' culture. By comparison, the wargaming community is pretty small and doesn't generally sport the talent on display in FPS circles. There is some, but you have to be realistic in your expectations.

[jwb3]

I seem to recall a poll that was done--I think by the Proving Grounds. It was surprising, if memory serves, that 50% or more of the responders said that they played mostly against the AI.

Even if that is accurate, the most dedicated players and thus most likely to make multiple purchases of games along the line of an improved CM x 1 are all those who frequent sites like this one. Of course those players are the other 50% or so who primarily play against other humans.
It's just my opinion, but it sounds to me like you're suffering from the echo chamber effect -- assuming that just because everyone around you shares your POV, it must be that of the majority. It doesn't surprise me in the least that 50% of players say they play mostly against the AI; I'm one of them!

If you hear relatively little around here from people like me, it may be because we have little need to be here. If we aren't looking for people to play against, and aren't taking part in tournaments, then about the only sites we really need to be involved with are TPG, TSD (now #2 of course), and places like CMMODs. In fact, the only reason I frequent Gamesquad at all is because of the ASL community; I stop by the CM section every once in a while just to see whether CM:SF continues to suck rocks.

It's particularly amusing to see you blithely stating that "of course the most dedicated players are those who play primarily against other humans...".
Heh. Tell that to all the people who wonder where I've disappeared to for weeks at a time because I was immersed in CM... And I assure you, I was just as eager to spend my money on improved CMx1 products as you were!

PBEMers... those of us who play against the AI... people who like QBs... people who spend their time exhaustively researching historical scenarios... each of these segments is more-or-less equally important to what makes the CMx1 community tick. And (in response to KGPsK's comments) I doubt that any particular one of these segments is any more fanboyish than any other.


None of this has anything to do with the WEGO/RT angle. I fully agree with KG_Jag's comments about WEGO; it's one of the big things that attracts me to the game, and I have no more interest in playing CM in RT mode than any of you do.


John

[BlitzCanuck]

I'm certain i've read on at least a couple of occasions members of Battlefront stating that the 10k+ members of the CMx1 forums represented only a small fraction of their customer base.
I don't recall the exact words used but i seem to recall it being in response to similar claims that Battlefront would be well advised to cater to the desires of the forum dwellers who thought Battlefront lived or died based on 'their' continued loyalty (supporting Battlefront with their wallets).

If it's true and if they are selling hundreds of thousands of copies of CMSF, then it's understandable that they wouldn't let the opinions of a handful of people on the various CM forums influence how they do business going forward.

[Geordie]

Hmm, I'm wondering if RT CMSF actually attracted RT fans. Its not something Ive really thought about but RT games tend to be able to be played mainly with the Mouse. You can do that in CMSF but its very cumbersome and if you programme in several hotkeys [all doing something different depending in the mode your in] it does get rather confusing.

Traditional RT games tend to be resource based, even the excellent Rome TW series is played by Mouse alone, with a couple of choice keys.

I'm not sure any traditional RT player would come back for more CM-2 after playing this one.

I have asked the same questions at BF on several occassions and never had them answered.

[KG_Jag]

I'm certain i've read on at least a couple of occasions members of Battlefront stating that the 10k+ members of the CMx1 forums represented only a small fraction of their customer base.
I don't recall the exact words used but i seem to recall it being in response to similar claims that Battlefront would be well advised to cater to the desires of the forum dwellers who thought Battlefront lived or died based on 'their' continued loyalty (supporting Battlefront with their wallets).

If it's true and if they are selling hundreds of thousands of copies of CMSF, then it's understandable that they wouldn't let the opinions of a handful of people on the various CM forums influence how they do business going forward.

Unlike the initial release of CM x 1, which was done 100% on-line out of the Battlefront [Big Time] site, they had a major distribution partner when they kicked of CM x 2. One would be shocked if under such circumstances, sales numbers were much higher. But Battlefront has also posted on its own forum on numerous occasions that its take per unit from product sold by its distribution partners is very low. The Paradox version is now in the bargain bin.

So the immediate questions are: what is Battlefront's net take on CMSF? Have they recouped their development costs for CM x 2? How has the state of the release and their handling of customer relations affected future sales of CM x 2 games? Will the the fundamental changes in CM x 2 attract more net dollars to Battlefront than if it had instead developed an improved game engine that stayed true to foundation laid in CM x 1?

I doubt that we'll be getting complete answers to any of these questions very soon. What appears clear at this point is:

1. CMSF has not gained a foothold in the RTS or FPS segments.

2. Battlefront has so far failed to sell the military a version of CM x 2.

3. Battlefront has alienated and disappointed most of its CM x 1 solid base of customers.

4. Battlefront has seriously tarnished its brand in all segments due the nature of CMSF upon release and the way they have responded to customers. For those who stuck around, they regained only a little ground by continuing to patch the game.

5. Battlefront knew what its CM x 1 fan base (essentially its only customers)clearly wanted (and did not want) to see in CM x 2: WEGO, PBEM, historically based or driven game subjects, playable force sizes of far more than a reinforced company, QB capabilities that improved upon what CM x1 offered, games that featured a scope of conflict large enough to be interesting to most of the CM x1 community and prevent its Balkanization into a series of mini games, an opening game that was not an asymmetrical U.S. vs. Syria hypo-war. Instead Battlefront made another game and game engine. They may or may not have some level of success with it. But they had notice long in advance of release that what they were cranking out is not what the CM x 1 community wanted. Hoping we would follow them--but ultimately counting on new kinds of customers, Battlefront made a decision to leave its fan base.

6. Battlefront left us. We did not leave them. Most of us will not follow them like lemmings and buy something just because it has "Combat Mission" and "Battlefront" on it. That became even more true after the problematic initial releases of ToW and CMSF. I'll be shocked if pre-orders for the next CM x 2 releases are in significant numbers.

[Redwolf]

The game has been ruined by an unfortunate pick of scale which now broke the 1:1 relationship between the granularity of unit location, individuals location, cover computation and LOS computation. Things don't really work that way. Even if you throw massive CPU cycles at the problem they never will because you can't program a TacAI smart enough to realistically place all individual soldiers.

On top of it typical BFC stubbornness made it worse, by removing unit selection (if it's impossible to operate a single Stryker because of C&C issues, how come it operates fine after you add a platoon and move all but one off the map). The overengineering of the pathfinding (just follow the bloddy user plotted path) is also in this category and not a result of scale choice. What makes things worse is overly conservative spotting rules (nobody sees anything) and overly conservative ammo choices (no reload of TOWs in a 30 minute battle even if your buddies get shot up? Tell that to a real Bradley crewmember) and overly conservative collision assumptions such as getting a squad out of a Stryker and into a house. Compare the latter between CM:SF and real life. These are all fixable, and most actually involve removing overengineered code, but Steve just doesn't want to.

1.05 won't fix anything major about these issues (may fix PBEM and TCP play, though, and make some LOS/LOF messes better), but that'll be the last patch before the Marines module, which won't fix much either.

[Bertram]

6. Battlefront left us. We did not leave them. Most of us will not follow them like lemmings and buy something just because it has "Combat Mission" and "Battlefront" on it. That became even more true after the problematic initial releases of ToW and CMSF. I'll be shocked if pre-orders for the next CM x 2 releases are in significant numbers.

The only way the next CMx2 release is bought in significant numbers will be if they find a way to greatly improve the WEGO/PBEM functionality of CMSF. Whether that's patch 1.05 or 5.11 they have their work cut out for them if they are to survive on CMx2. As pissed as I might be at their present poor decisions and attitude towards once loyal customers, I do hope they succeed. Because as Don pointed out there is not a line of developers waiting to make what a few of us want.

[KG_Jag]

The only way the next CMx2 release is bought in significant numbers will be if they find a way to greatly improve the WEGO/PBEM functionality of CMSF. Whether that's patch 1.05 or 5.11 they have their work cut out for them if they are to survive on CMx2. As pissed as I might be at their present poor decisions and attitude towards once loyal customers, I do hope they succeed. Because as Don pointed out there is not a line of developers waiting to make what a few of us want.

The key issue/ question is: succeed at what? Battlefront fronts for other game makers, but the CM line is/has been their core. If CM x 2, Battlefront's only home-made product now and for many years to come (according to Battlefront's own words on their own forum), is not a game engine that we want to play, then who is to care?

As I said earlier in the thread, unless Battlefront wakes up and returns to its roots, very few that are here will care.

There have been efforts to produce CM x 1 type clones. Perhaps one of them will succeed or Battlefront will license the CM x 1 engine.

[Bertram]

The key issue/ question is: succeed at what? Battlefront fronts for other game makers, but the CM line is/has been their core. If CM x 2, Battlefront's only home-made product now and for many years to come (according to Battlefront's own words on their own forum), is not a game engine that we want to play, then who is to care?

As I said earlier in the thread, unless Battlefront wakes up and returns to its roots, very few that are here will care.

There have been efforts to produce CM x 1 type clones. Perhaps one of them will succeed or Battlefront will license the CM x 1 engine.

Succeed at modifying CMx2 to perform the way 'we' want. With the revival of some CMx1 functions, repair of WEGO glitches, and the use of said engine in a WWII and possibly Korean war game, we'd be interested once again. Unless.............that mythical company arrives to sweep us off our feet.

[KG_Jag]

Succeed at modifying CMx2 to perform the way 'we' want. With the revival of some CMx1 functions, repair of WEGO glitches, and the use of said engine in a WWII and possibly Korean war game, we'd be interested once again.

Agreed--and there is an existing market. One that is currently waiting. It is the same market, only now more cohesive than the one upon which Big Time/Battlefront counted on to survive and flourish in their small way. These are the folks who bought CMBO, CMBB & CMAK.

[Mad Russian]

I doubt that we'll be getting complete answers to any of these questions very soon. What appears clear at this point is:

1. CMSF has not gained a foothold in the RTS or FPS segments.


Do you know this for certain? I'm pretty sure that you're right simply because the sales numbers don't seem to be there. If the game was selling like hotcakes it wouldn't be in the bargain bins. I think BFC tried to "cross over" into the land of milk and high profits. The military had a HUGE hand in this. I'm thinking that BFC was putting their eggs in the military basket and then taking the chance on the RTS/FPS genre. If they sold to the military they had their money. If the game took off in RTS/FPS it would be a home run of proportions they could only dream about.


2. Battlefront has so far failed to sell the military a version of CM x 2.


Not sure that's true. There were ALOT of military advisors onboard in the development of this game. And why continue forward with a Marine version if there is so much flak over the regular one???? Could it be sales to the Marines?


3. Battlefront has alienated and disappointed most of its CM x 1 solid base of customers.


That they have. Mostly with, "shutup we know best." Too bad they chose that avenue of communication. They did it with CMx1 and that pretty much worked out. They are trying it with CMx2 and it's not...kind of a Hitler tells the generals basic scenario here.


4. Battlefront has seriously tarnished its brand in all segments due the nature of CMSF upon release and the way they have responded to customers. For those who stuck around, they regained only a little ground by continuing to patch the game.


They have only lost a couple of battles. They must be banking on winning the war. They did it with CMx1 and they think they can do it with CMx2.


5. Battlefront knew what its CM x 1 fan base (essentially its only customers)clearly wanted (and did not want) to see in CM x 2: WEGO, PBEM, historically based or driven game subjects, playable force sizes of far more than a reinforced company, QB capabilities that improved upon what CM x1 offered, games that featured a scope of conflict large enough to be interesting to most of the CM x1 community and prevent its Balkanization into a series of mini games, an opening game that was not an asymmetrical U.S. vs. Syria hypo-war. Instead Battlefront made another game and game engine. They may or may not have some level of success with it. But they had notice long in advance of release that what they were cranking out is not what the CM x 1 community wanted. Hoping we would follow them--but ultimately counting on new kinds of customers, Battlefront made a decision to leave its fan base.


WEGO may not be what the military wants. If not, and they are the target market - which I think the evidence shows they are, nothing you say or do will move them off of center.


6. Battlefront left us. We did not leave them. Most of us will not follow them like lemmings and buy something just because it has "Combat Mission" and "Battlefront" on it. That became even more true after the problematic initial releases of ToW and CMSF. I'll be shocked if pre-orders for the next CM x 2 releases are in significant numbers.

That's true. The facts are they seem to hunting bigger game and to do that they had to go in and completely get new hunting gear and go to a new place to hunt. Not the old markets but completely new ones.

That's what I see happening here. They are taking all this heat for a reason. It has to be a VERY GOOD REASON...

Good Hunting.

MR

[Redwolf]

The key issue/ question is: succeed at what? Battlefront fronts for other game makers, but the CM line is/has been their core. If CM x 2, Battlefront's only home-made product now and for many years to come (according to Battlefront's own words on their own forum), is not a game engine that we want to play, then who is to care?


BFC lost almost all of the publishing deals, most of their successful developers went to Matrix Games. The only serious games left are TacOps and Strategic Command. Then you have a couple small obscure grognard games (nice but not enough volume). And Balkans on Fire and Theater of War, titles which will not possibly do much good for them considering how the games were received and how the developers interact with the customers.

On top of that BFC as a developer is now hooked with a publisher that messes with their release decisions, losing their one true advantage which is (was) quality.

Licensing out CMx1 for money isn't going to happen since it's clear that the code is pretty much locked up against larger graphics improvements. There are people who would pick it up for gameplay, not graphics, but that would be people who'd give the game away as in a community effort. In which case they won't pay anything for the license and BFC probably feels that would undermine their revenue for CMx2 titles.

[kawaiku]

BFC lost almost all of the publishing deals, most of their successful developers went to Matrix Games.
Wow...I did not hear about this. When did this happen?

[KG_Jag]

Wow...I did not hear about this. When did this happen?

It's been happening over the years. Battlefront's loss of Panther Games to Matrix was probably the most important. Matrix has also taken titles/developers from Shrapnel.

In the small wargaming pond, Matrix is the big fish in terms of titles and distribution.

[Geordie]

Well Im thru posting at the BF SF section. Seems like I have a bad attitude because I said that even if they fix 60 problems that unless they fix the core elements of the game it will still be unplayable.

I think that SF is the last BF game I will ever buy. Someday someone will make another game to rival CM. The scope of SF has been reduced purely because of the RT and even a Company is hard to command in RT. Platoon based may be a good idea.

As for the Army using this as a training aid? That maybe true, but even they wouldnt touch it until the basic and fundamental flaws are fixed.

Harumph!!!!!

[MKSheppard]

The reason BFC is going ahead with the USMC module is that they see it as their last attempt to "grab" the market; e.g. they've already sunk much of the cost into developing the CMx2 engine; so why not try and make one last stab?

I do predict that the Marines module will fail utterly, unless they return back to their CMx1 roots; but as Steve has said, that won't happen.

So in about a year's time, BFC will be dead, having blown much of their money on developing CMx2; and in the process of doing so, killed off the great CMx1 community.

I mean, I have to imagine they got a lot of money from Shock Force, but that was from the CMx1 fanbase who expected CMx2.0 from them, not Real Timex0.5 and preordered on Battlefront's reputation. I know I was one of those...

After having been burned like that, nobody (except the few who like the game) is going to buy the USMC module, which will cause it to lose money, or come only within a hairs breadth of break even.

So now that BFC has annihilated their core money making franchise, what's left?

A couple of games like Strategic Command 2, Down in Flames, Drop Team, and TacOps; the majority of which have already sold 95% of the units they're ever going to sell; along with a few trickles of the CMx1 games from the one or two people who don't have it yet.

Histwar - Les Grognards sounds like an interesting title, but it's been in development for a while, and Napoleonic wargames are a niche market -- the big seller is WW2 ETO.

Their lineup does not inspire confidence in their long term stability.

And now that I think about it, I can't help but wonder if BFC's "Attitude" helped drive off several of their developers to alternative publishers, like KG_Jag said, the most notable being Panther Games. If steve is this assholish on the forum to the "fans", imagine how much worse he must be over the phone for publishing deals?

[CPangracs]

Interesting.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the thousands who like CMSF? I mean, you can't possibly believe every owner of the game hates it, right?

They are still selling copies, and I've read plenty of posts in the BF forums and other forums that actually support the game, have few if any issues with playing it, and are treating it as it is, a piece of entertainment.

Seriously, unless you are trying to train the next generation of Platoon leaders in tactics, what are you expecting from CM:SF? It's not like the military simulations bureaucracy has solved the AI or pathfinding issues, and that's after a mere BILLION+ dollars of development.

Expecting the same from lil' old Battlefront seems a bit naive.

Furthermore, in looking at much of the traffic at their forums, it isn't always a simple case of a consumer voicing their opinion. It's more like a drunk butthead screaming at someone that their mother's a whore. Hardly a productive discourse.

I'm not defending BF either way, but it is, in my observation, more a case of a developer sick of childish crap being thrown at them from the monkey cage instead of constructive criticism. I know for a fact that they sincerely want to address the issues found by some owners of CM:SF, but continuing to flog a dead horse isn't helping to fix the problem, and then, when it starts getting to the point where childish insults are thrown around, it is definitely time to set parameters and follow them.

It's a game, people, and a good one for what it is, IMO. I have fun BECAUSE of the strange behaviors. For anyone that's been in real combat, you know that some of the things you see in CM:SF are not uncommon to see in real life - soldiers not following SOP, vehicles getting stuck in bad positions, open to enemy fire, a unit getting lost trying to find its way even a few hundred meters in dense surroundings.

Granted, there are some large issues with CM:SF, but at least they have attempted something that so few, beyond the military sim establishment, are trying to do. If they ever crack the code on pathfinding and AI, then they will be very rich people indeed...

[KG_Jag]

Maybe CMSF is a game that is best appreciated by another developer.

In case everyone has not yet seen it, GS (#2 Scott Tortorice) has just posted a review of CMSF--v1.04. It is here:

http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_articles&id=8&pform=&aid=179

Not sure that the final score (7 of 10) reflects the narrative, unless one is aware that the lowest review score posted here for about 40 reviews over a period of about 14 months is a "6". See:

http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_articles&id=8

There is an interesting discussion of Scott's review on Usenet, which you can find here:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_frm/thread/668cfc4a85d9b4f4?hl=en#e8db77b500093665

[MKSheppard]

They are still selling copies, and I've read plenty of posts in the BF forums and other forums that actually support the game, have few if any issues with playing it, and are treating it as it is, a piece of entertainment.

If you call a grand total of what, a couple dozen new scenarios made for the game in nearly half a year's time post-release -- "thousands who like it".

Seriously, unless you are trying to train the next generation of Platoon leaders in tactics, what are you expecting from CM:SF?

I expected the innovative WEGO style gameplay of Combat Mission Beyond Overlord, Barbarossa to Berlin, and Afrika Korps; not a bastardized version that was tacked on as an afterthought to the real time mode (which doesn't work too).

It's not like the military simulations bureaucracy has solved the AI or pathfinding issues, and that's after a mere BILLION+ dollars of development.

Then why was the pathfinding in CMx1 acceptable to everyone? Sure, the units from time to time did annoying quirks, but on the whole, they behaved like real people would.

CMx2's pathfinding is utterly broken; it's hilarious and sad to see Strykers doing indian war tribal dances.

Expecting the same from lil' old Battlefront seems a bit naive.

See above. CMx1's pathfinding was acceptable and adequate, and actually worked, you got the feeling of real people being moved around, because units would break and retreat if you ordered them into a machine gun's field of fire; rather than having unlimited morale (Close Combat 3 release by MS)

Furthermore, in looking at much of the traffic at their forums, it isn't always a simple case of a consumer voicing their opinion. It's more like a drunk butthead screaming at someone that their mother's a whore. Hardly a productive discourse.

So you're saying that the fanbase that made Combat Mission the success it was are drunken buttheads screaming that BFC's mother's are whores?

I'm not defending BF either way, but it is, in my observation, more a case of a developer sick of childish crap being thrown at them from the monkey cage instead of constructive criticism.

Childish crap? BFC completely dropped the ball with Shock Force, and when people complained about it; BFC's response to them was "**** you, this is a grand new better way of doing things, and if you don't like it, **** off"

[CPangracs]

If you call a grand total of what, a couple dozen new scenarios made for the game in nearly half a year's time post-release -- "thousands who like it".

So, a person has to make a scenario for a game to prove they like it? Please think your thoughts through before putting them on display. i probably play close fifty new games every year, and I don't have the time to make scenarios for every one I like. I make scenarios in simulations as part of my job, why should i do it for free?

Do you make scenarios for every game you like? Doubtful.


I expected the innovative WEGO style gameplay of Combat Mission Beyond Overlord, Barbarossa to Berlin, and Afrika Korps; not a bastardized version that was tacked on as an afterthought to the real time mode (which doesn't work too).

In your opinion. To BF's credit, they never promised a WEGO system, but added it due to community desire. You shouldn't be expecting a flawless product.

Real-time works fine for me, and I'll likely never play "WEGO". I've never liked that style of play because too much can happen during a "run", and you can't react to it. Personal preference only.

Then why was the pathfinding in CMx1 acceptable to everyone? Sure, the units from time to time did annoying quirks, but on the whole, they behaved like real people would.

Because it wasn't real-time in that version. The second you go to real-time, an entirely new set of issues come-up. You are also looking at a new engine, so it's not just a matter of tweaking "what worked" in WEGO into a real-time product. Inversely, it is also difficult to turn a real-time engine into a WEGO product. Tracking?

CMx2's pathfinding is utterly broken; it's hilarious and sad to see Strykers doing indian war tribal dances.

Again, that's a subjective statement. I see plenty of good pathfinding, sure, some things get screwy, but like you said, the same thing happened in CM1.

Your expectations of even close-to-perfect pathfinding is unrealistic. The US Army has been trying to make even an acceptable PF AI for OneSAF for years and multiple millions of dollars, and they are about as close as CM:SF.


See above. CMx1's pathfinding was acceptable and adequate, and actually worked, you got the feeling of real people being moved around, because units would break and retreat if you ordered them into a machine gun's field of fire; rather than having unlimited morale (Close Combat 3 release by MS)

No, you see above. It's a different engine altogether. You want what you want, and you want it now. How long did the first CM take to develop what you would consider good pathfinding and AI? Was it at its current state within 6 months of release? I think not. Were there thousands of scenarios within 6 months of its release? Nope.


So you're saying that the fanbase that made Combat Mission the success it was are drunken buttheads screaming that BFC's mother's are whores?

No, I'm saying some of them are, and you can't deny it.



Childish crap? BFC completely dropped the ball with Shock Force, and when people complained about it; BFC's response to them was "**** you, this is a grand new better way of doing things, and if you don't like it, **** off"

No, their response was "Stop with the insults and give the game a chance, outline the issues you are having, and we'll address them as we can". I was there from the beginning, mainly just watching things progress into a morass of crap. The people who started with the childish stuff were the consumers who couldn't rtefrain from using phrases that were meant to be confrontational and demeaning.

See, this is the problem with having an active forum were the developers are there and involved, because those guys purt everything they have into a product, they know there are or will be issues because there are millions of combinations of hardware, software, and user intelligence/expectations (or lack thereof), then they have to wade through all the silly stuff to get to the real issues.

I can say with confidence that any person who posted succinct bug issues, with screenshots and steps on replicating the issue, were taken seriously by the developers, and those issues were addressed in patches. The problem comes when the people don't feel the issues have been addressed to their satisfaction, even if they don't want to understand how difficult the problem(s) are to fix.

This is why BF put the clamp down on people coming into the forums to flame and incite. Can you blame them, really?

Have you ever spent a year or more on a single project like CM:SF only to see people talk smack about it without being constructive? I have, and it's not fun. For those of you who have gone through this, you know what I'm talking about.

the guys at BF never denied the program was released too early. they admitted it, gave the reasons, and asked people to work with them to overcome that issue.

Some fanbase...they real jerks either abandoned them and/or hung around to just badmouth them no matter what they were doing with the engine.

I don't blame them one bit, however they could have handled things differently, they did what they did, and people are turning into stalkers and obssessive weirdos over a $40 computer game.

It's extremely sad.

[Redwolf]

I do predict that the Marines module will fail utterly, unless they return back to their CMx1 roots; but as Steve has said, that won't happen.

So in about a year's time, BFC will be dead, having blown much of their money on developing CMx2; and in the process of doing so, killed off the great CMx1 community.


A military contract might change that. Quality doesn't really have an impact on the military's probability to buy it, so it might work out.

I think that the very decision to make a Marines module indicates this is what BFC is aiming for, exactly. I don't think any regular customer would give a damn, neither the forum crowd nor the retail crowd. The Marine Corp is often looking for innovative methods to improve training, they are certainly the best target audience.

[Redwolf]

Curt, nobody's expecting perfect pathfinding.

But the difference between CMx1 and CMx2 is too large to find CMx2's even acceptable.

Furthermore, there have been too many people, inside BFC, on the BFC forum and elsewhere, assuring people like me that all will be fixed in the next patch. That has been going on since 1.02, and what we got is that 1.04 has precisely the same issues as 1.02. They didn't chance a single bit so far, but they don't hesitate to make nebulous posts indicating that they addressed it without committing to say so.

That is, precisely, why there has been a sharp dropoff in interest after the 1.04 patch. And that is although 1.04 was overall an improvement (let's leave out multiplayer). Nice way to turn the hard work invested into a patch, and the ability to overall improve the game, into a negative impact.

[thewood]

I can say with confidence that any person who posted succinct bug issues, with screenshots and steps on replicating the issue, were taken seriously by the developers, and those issues were addressed in patches. The problem comes when the people don't feel the issues have been addressed to their satisfaction, even if they don't want to understand how difficult the problem(s) are to fix.



Alright, I wanted to stay out of this...but,

I have asked dozens of legitimate questions about game play, examples: stryker reactions, scenario plans, etc. The far majority were never answered by BFC. Instead they jump into pissing contests and rail on with a persecution complex. If I slander a Stryker concept, Steve is all over me, but ask how to get directional smoke and all I get are a bunch of beta-testers guessing with only a little better information. If you think questions are actually getting answered, I dare you to sort through the tech support forum and see how many times someone actually from BFC shows up to answer a question.

The beta-testers in the forum handing out information and not realizing it only works in 1.05 is a big part of my problem. Steve seems to be losing control of them.

BFC had the complete ability to not have this happen. This is one of the most screwed up launches I have ever seen in wargaming. Its not just the competely crappy state CMSF was in, but Steve's attitude that its the customers fault for not seeing the greatness.

As far as number of buyers, we'll never know. BFC has never shared that info on any game. But just look at all the buzz around the net. Wargaming forums, oh wait, mostly none to negative. How about CM websites, oh wait that is mostly negative. Well how about the new customers that wanted RT and a more modern feel, oh, they aren't talking about it. How about Scenario Depot, no section for CMSF. Well lets look at CMMODS, ok a bright spot, oh wait less than a few dozen scenarios and no mods. So here is another dare, show me the most active non-BFC site for CMSF. Show me the forum where people are going on for days discussing the greatness that CMSF is.

I still think CMSF has potential, but right now its just potential. Anyone who can honestly post that CMSF is a success at this moment is deluding themselves or somehow tied directly to BFC. In the end BFC is really selling us out to chase that lucrative contract with the military. We've seen it before and it is quite disappointing. The procurement and support process will kill them. Steve customer management skills will not be taken well in that procurement process. If anything drives BFC out of business, it will be chasing the military $.

[Geordie]

Do we know that they are actively chasing a military contract? I mean the military has to provide details under the freedom of information act dont they? It would be interesting to find out?

[thewood]

Quite a while ago, Steve mentioned that possible use by the military was one reason for the modern setting

[thewood]

OK here is an update on 1.05. Seems the dynamic lighting is a focus for the fix.

http://www.battlefront-store.com:8080//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=68

I think its great that dynamic lighting is in. Graphically it makes it look cool. But I gotta say, I hope that was one of the last things they put in the patch. There sure a lot of things that need fixing. Steve said they really weren't touching the scenaio editor or QBs. Instead, we get dynamic lighting. I see a lot of things like that. Animations of soldiers changing clips, while standing in the open getting hammered. Instead of putting resources into the animation, why not get work on a TACAI that says hit the dirt (just an example). I am not sure what the priorities are any more.

edit: my brother just saw this and said its like taking your car to the shop to have the brakes fixed. You pick it up and the brakes still don't work, but they polished and waxed it for you. I know BFC likes car stories

[KG_Jag]

OK--let's address this part by part:

1. So, a person has to make a scenario for a game to prove they like it? Please think your thoughts through before putting them on display. i probably play close fifty new games every year, and I don't have the time to make scenarios for every one I like. I make scenarios in simulations as part of my job, why should i do it for free?

Do you make scenarios for every game you like? Doubtful.

Many people made many battles and ops for CMBO, CMBB & CMAK for the earliest days. (BTW: They started early and still produce them years later.) That is not true for CMSF. There is a sharp drop in scenario creation from the CM x 1 games. Yes--this is a legitimate measure of the relative popularity of CMSF vs. the CM x 1 games.

[KG_Jag]

2. In your opinion. To BF's credit, they never promised a WEGO system, but added it due to community desire. You shouldn't be expecting a flawless product.

Real-time works fine for me, and I'll likely never play "WEGO". I've never liked that style of play because too much can happen during a "run", and you can't react to it. Personal preference only.

What they told us is that the new game would be CM x 2. What Battlefront told us from the beginning was:

"For those of you who aren't aware, CMx2 is a ground up game engine based on the concepts of CMx1 (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK)."

Link:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000001

CM x 1 was WEGO, historically based, and PBEM capable, just to highlight of few of its attributes. Based on the name of the new engine and being told that CMx2 was “based on the concepts of CMx1 (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK)”, not a single person I knew of in the CMx1 customer base anticipated a RT game with WEGO tacked on. We were worried about PBEM though and told Battlefront about that concern early and often.

WEGO was the only way CMx1 was played and it is the core of those games. If you like RT that's great, but it is not CM. Further, such play comes at a high cost in terms of force sizes that are playable. It thereby also limits what battles and ops can be played.

[KG_Jag]

3. Because it wasn't real-time in that version. The second you go to real-time, an entirely new set of issues come-up.

A problem avoided by staying with WEGO. We could have received the first CMx2 game much faster and time devoted to trying to get RT to work could have devoted to improving upon CMx1 pathfinding--which is clearly better in CMx1 than what we see in CMSF v1.04.

To deny that there are still serious pathfinding issues in CMSF leaves me all but speechless--and that's saying something coming from lawyer. I guess the few folks that are undecided on this issue can read the reviews, many forum posts or even play the game and then make their own respective calls.

[KG_Jag]

4. the guys at BF never denied the program was released too early. they admitted it, gave the reasons, and asked people to work with them to overcome that issue.

Some fanbase...they real jerks either abandoned them and/or hung around to just badmouth them no matter what they were doing with the engine.

I don't blame them one bit, however they could have handled things differently, they did what they did, and people are turning into stalkers and obsessive weirdos over a $40 computer game.

It's extremely sad.

Battlefront was a party in having Paradox ship CMSF v1.00, which was so bad that Battlefront did not release it, but instead sent all the "saps" that paid for a finished game a still beta (at best) v1.01. It was not until 2 weeks after the game was released--and Battlefront had people's money--that it admitted to shipping a beta game. Even then such admission was preyed from them by customers carrying torches and pitchforks. Customers who formerly had trusted Battlefront not to release a game "until it was ready."

So did things get hot on all sides? You bet, including from those posting as Battlefront.

If by handling things differently you mean that Battlefront should not have taken people's money in exchange for a broken game that was also missing features--I agree. If you mean that Battlefront should not have shouted down those who made legit points on these issues and should not have responded by obfuscating and telling customers that it was them who "did not get it."--I concur.

I know that some customers also got overheated, but have of no knowledge of stalking, and saw little more obsessive weirdness that had appeared on the Battlefront forum in the past. What I saw mostly was responses from a great many unhappy customers and former customers.

And yes--it's all extremely sad.

[Palantir]

I'll jump into this:
...have few if any issues with playing it, and are treating it as it is, a piece of entertainment....
Please, playing a piece of entertainment? Did they not want to play a military simulation just like CM?

Seriously, unless you are trying to train the next generation of Platoon leaders in tactics, what are you expecting from CM:SF?
I don't know, how about what they first promised the people, a CMx1 version with a new "better" engine?

I have fun BECAUSE of the strange behaviors. :crosseye:

For anyone that's been in real combat, you know that some of the things you see in CM:SF are not uncommon to see in real life - soldiers not following SOP, vehicles getting stuck in bad positions, open to enemy fire, a unit getting lost trying to find its way even a few hundred meters in dense surroundings. So if this is the way the game is SUPPOSED to be, why then are they trying to fix/patch those very "fun & entertaining" behaviors we all love?

If they ever crack the code on pathfinding and AI, then they will be very rich people indeed... Yea just think of a CMx3 with a good "follow the road" A.I. just like we wanted in CMx1.2, it would sell millions of copies. :halo:

I think this thread about the death of CM:SF has generated more interest in # of posts than all other "good" discussion threads combined about the game has ever generated here.

Oh, and any game that is showng up in bargin bins within months of it's release cannot be called a success.

[kawaiku]

I think this thread about the death of CM:SF has generated more interest in # of posts than all other "good" discussion threads combined about the game has ever generated here.
And probably one of the most civil in the whole community atm that I know of:cheeky:

O btw, what do you guys think of the AI scripting thing in CMSF? I think that was the only innovative aspect of the whole game from what I could tell.

[Geordie]

OK here is an update on 1.05. Seems the dynamic lighting is a focus for the fix.

http://www.battlefront-store.com:8080//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=68

I think its great that dynamic lighting is in. Graphically it makes it look cool. But I gotta say, I hope that was one of the last things they put in the patch. There sure a lot of things that need fixing. Steve said they really weren't touching the scenaio editor or QBs. Instead, we get dynamic lighting. I see a lot of things like that. Animations of soldiers changing clips, while standing in the open getting hammered. Instead of putting resources into the animation, why not get work on a TACAI that says hit the dirt (just an example). I am not sure what the priorities are any more.

edit: my brother just saw this and said its like taking your car to the shop to have the brakes fixed. You pick it up and the brakes still don't work, but they polished and waxed it for you. I know BFC likes car stories

Yes I noticed that too BFC does like their car analogies. I think the dynamic lightin looks great too. But I have to agree that no amount of dynamic lighting will be good enough if the main features still aint working. If I park my Stryker 5 feet from a door and order my Squad into the bldg and they still run all around the block, it wont matter how good they look doing it.

I am also unsure of their priorities, it also seems like they maybe too as Steve said he didnt even know Charles was working on Dynamic lighting. I can imagine the scena at BFC;

Steve: "Charles, hows the bug fixes going for 1.05, you know our priority is pathfinding and LOS/LOF"

Charles: "Ive done some cool dynamic lighting Steve"

Steve: "But thats not our priority".

Charles: " Well no one told me"

Maybe they need to speak to each other more, I mean it must be hard with a whole 5 of them working there.

I think they should have invested some of their $2million on a couple of new staff.


As for the Beta testers! Dont even get me started on them, they must be some of the most fanboish clowns that ever graced the BF Forums.

The whole thing is one huge cock-up if you ask me.

[thewood]

This from Steve in the patch thread:

"In all seriousness, CM:SF has issues. We know that. We're fixing them and have a proven track record of that. Whether it will ever be enough for some people, I can't say. But we are doing our best."

That is the closest to outright contrition I seen from him on CMSF. It is very subtle, but he actually comes right out and says issues instead of something like "a few bugs" or "tweaking".

I would have cut BFC an immense amout of slack if they had just come out and said:

Hey, we screwed up big time and we have to release the game before its finished. We know it has some pretty big bugs and missing features, but trust us and we will make it right.

Instead Steve came out swinging and defensive. He seems to still take it very lightly that he took our money and delivered very little. We are now almost 6 months past release and Steve is still railing on customers for complaining. The sychophants over in the BFC community (the half dozen or so left) are really stretching their ability to rationalize the flaws in the game. I initially wondered why BFC didn't release a demo before product release, which has been their MO. I think we know why now. To me that shows the worst of this situation, BFC knowingly took advantage of our trust in them. Steve has spent the last six months, along with his personal army of beta testers, ratioanlizing away game flaws and how this whole thing has been handled. If this were a car, I would have seen them in court. For a $50 game, all I have is this.

[Palantir]

I know for myself that even if BFC says they are coming out with a new CMx3 "WW2" version there is no way I will preorder it if I get it at all.

If I do I'll wait until it actually hits the "shelves" and read REAL player reviews before I plop down $50 to a company that has told me as a CMx1 player to shove it.

[Redwolf]

For what it's worth, thewood, I appreciate your work on the BFC forum.

You are in a somewhat similar position as I was after the CMBB release when I tried to convince BFC to let go of the auto-sneak-exhaustion, TacAI retreats from safe kill shots and excessively pessimistic turn rates and bogging chances (they did the latter for CMAK to a degree).

Steve's behavior towards you is exactly like it was towards me back in the day. He's playing the audience, and reasonably well. He knows that the hardcore wargamers are gone either way. From his position he knows that dynamic lightning is actually the more important thing to get into 1.05 because that makes new people buy the game. Those who have a problem with pathfinding either already bought it or they never will with the amount of improvements they BFC can possibly put into 1.05.

Some posts above this I said that CMx2 is ruined by the scope that broke up the 1:1 relationship between the granularity of unit location, individuals location, cover computation and LOS computation. I have thought about it some more and I am more confident than ever that 1.05 will be one of those hyped patches that doesn't live up anywhere close to the expectations set. If it gets dynamic lightning and makes PBEM and TCP playable at all, that is quite the workload already.

BTW, anybody realizes how much time has passed since 1.04?

Fun link:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003410

To clarify: the fundamental brokenness of the broken scale relationship wouldn't prevent BFC from fixing pathfinding, obviously. But I think Steve made it clear they are not just going to comment out a bunch of code and go to a "just follow the &**## user-plotted points no matter what" or "just get through the &&&#*#)# door one after another one with no extra plotting for collision detection, just have them wait one by one". It's a simplification that BFC just doesn't want to live with. They will rather hack it up trying to make it work and then run out of hacking time.


ETA: Another fun link:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003409;p=3#000 070
Pathfinding as of v1.04 is actually pretty good IMHO.[...]

[KG_Jag]

Redwolf and thewood--I always enjoy reading your posts. Each of you have far more technical knowledge than I'll ever possess and each of you is a straight shooter. Agree or disagree your stuff is worth the read.

Unless I'm missing something, GS has so far elected not to have a CMSF or CM x 2 ladder. There appears to be a complete lack of a demand for such thing. Perhaps this is largely due to the difficulties is playing h2h in the current state of CMSF. Speaking of which, Scott's GS review of CMSF v 1.04 did not even touch upon human vs. human play.

The Blitz reports that thus far on their CMSF ladder only 4 people have posted a total of 5 games in the 5 + months since CMSF's release. See:

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=43454

[Redwolf]

Unless I'm missing something, GS has so far elected not to have a CMSF or CM x 2 ladder. There appears to be a complete lack of a demand for such thing. Perhaps this is largely due to the difficulties is playing h2h in the current state of CMSF. Speaking of which, Scott's GS review of CMSF v 1.04 did not even touch upon human vs. human play.


I thought both PBEM and TCP are entirely broken since 1.04 :confused:. I have to admit I didn't follow that closely anymore.

Oh, and it's time to bash BFC's supposed "modder friendliness"...

[Nemesis Lead]

I remember when everyone was asking for a date when CMSF would be released. Battlefront always replied "We will release it when it is ready and up to our standards of excellence..."

A classic short term capitalization on a powerful brand. They have their money, but they lost their fan base and won't see money in the future.

I am also convinced that a lot of the apologists on the BFC forum are actually BFC employees or their pychophant beta testers. No one in their right mind would find this game playable.

[kawaiku]

So I am taking it that you guys probably won't play it much anymore even if it becomes half decent?

[Nemesis Lead]

I would play it. The issue is that BF only has one person making changes now and considered the game 99.9% done. They have posted many times to that effect. The have also flatly refused to incorporate many CMX1 features and seem more interested in adding Marine and other CMX2 modules.

The way things are going......CMX2 won't even be fully playable until version 1.15 or so. So....I would play the game if it was playable, but that seems a remote possibility considering BF's ridiculous inability to listen and utter lack of support.

[Redwolf]

So I am taking it that you guys probably won't play it much anymore even if it becomes half decent?

Sure I would, but you realize that this is not a possibility, right?

On one hand you have the mess of the new scale with their action tiles which will make it near impossible (that translates to not doable with a single programmer) to get all that LOS, LOF and positioning right.

Then you have the pathfinding that could easily be improved by not using it and rely more on the user, which Steve just doesn't want to do, so it won't get fixed.

Once you would theoretically get through those two you are left with a game where terrain is featureless, the only real cover is buildings.

You think you can get through all this with a single programmer?

[thewood]

I still like making small scenarios and playing with myself (bad image). I do it for maybe a couple of hours in week. I have three weeks without playing until 1.05 started being talked about more. I'll probably play around with it this weekend when the kids go off to grandmas, will more than likely end up playing SB and CMBB/AK.

I will never give up on it, it has enough good points, but it will never take the place of CMBB and CMAK.

[KG_Jag]

So I am taking it that you guys probably won't play it much anymore even if it becomes half decent?

Although the subject matter and terrain are of minimal interest to me, I will give it another look when they pump out the v1.05 patch for the Paradox version.

I have next to zero interest in a Marine game in this same setting. My eye will be on what is happening with the CM x 2 engine as we march along. In addition to all the technical and programing issues discussed by Redwolf, the wood and DM (on another thread), my continued attention will be affected by what, if anything, is done with regard to WEGO and PBEM play.

As I recall, somewhere between CMBO version 1.02 and version 1.04, that game could be played against another human using PBEM. If memory serves one more time, TCP/IP wasn't to far behind a working PBEM.

[Michael Dorosh]

It's also interesting to note that Combat Missions Campaigns is deader than ****.

It's no longer even showing up on their front page; it's quietly been shunted into oblivion, which makes no sense. Because if it was EVER released; it would be an instant best-seller; as just about everyone who bought CMBB would buy it.

The reason I can see for CMC being killed off is because BFC doesn't want to get the egg on their face of the "old, clunky" CMBB engine actually outselling their "next generation" Sh!t Force engine.

It's also possible, though, that CMC will be so horrifically bad that it will simply be another example of poor design decisions and yet more egg on their face. There is now a call out for a new crop of beta testers for CMC. I'm guessing some of the previous ones died of old age.

Have you ever wanted to date a girl so bad, it took you months to get up the courage to ask her out, got headaches from making sidelong glances at her in the cafeteria, but finally had yourself convinced after expending so much time daydreaming about her and putting her on a pedestal that you were head over heels in love with her? And all your friends, they didn't get why you had the hots for the creepy girl who had the wart under her ear and walked without moving her arms and had eyes that looked in two different directions at once - but you were so busy convincing yourself you were in love with her that you never noticed all that until you were on the first date and she was talking with her mouth full at dinner and snapping her gum all through the movie and talking to three other guys on her cel phone in the car on the way home?

I think any CMBB player is head over heels with the idea of an operational layer and some of them would even kill their dog in order to get a copy of this software, but desperation makes men do stupid things...