British Forces DEMO thread

[Michael Dorosh]

May as well start a new thread on this. I downloaded the demo but haven't tried it yet.

I went to BFC to see if there is any buzz but didn't get past the thread where Adam got banned. There may be some rapture there but it went past me unnoticed. I didn't see any subject headings saying THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU at any rate. I know avl90 had some comments in the other thread. I'm going to tag some this thread and the other one so we can collect all the Brit ones for easy finding.

Any reactions, either to the demo, or the talk on the BFC forum? I really haven't seen much there beyond complaints. I did see a nugget about being able to put minefields in different AI plans (in the scenario editor), which is a great new feature to make mine strikes more unpredictable in multiple playings of scenarios (however often that happens). It was in response to the question "why are there no new red forces."

 

[Redwolf]

I got so horrified just reading about the new spotting I figured it's better to maybe try the Brits later. The last thing I need is another morale dampener. Or maybe I try the 1.20 code in the old modules first.

 

[dalem]

What's up with the new spotting? Am I gonna have to go read a BFC thread? Yuck.

-dale

 

[avl90]

I'm sticking with 1.11. Nuff said.

 

[avl90]

Well I sent Steve a document asking him to post my final words. I hope he will allow that given the continued talk about my character without any way for me to defend myself. Oh wait, that's what they took issue with. Hopefully this version will be a little more elegant! I know I don't react well when people "pick on" me, however slightly. I do get distraught. (Eh Mike?) I happen to think that is the proper reaction, but whatever.

What changed with spotting?

Well it seems that the brush tiles no longer offer much concealment. They say concealment values haven't changed but spotting abilities have. Men in foxholes in those tiles will be spotted by about 200m. I'm not sure how that varies with CMx1 if at all.

Crewed weapons, like HMGs or ATGMs will be spotted at distances in excess of 500m in trenches or brush, even with foliage, by regular infantry. Height seems to help - airguard on Strykers now can spot quite a bit.

Rooftops, even with lips, are no longer good hiding places. You can't stay up there without being spotted. FO's on fully lipped rooftops, with "hide orders", will be spotted by ordinary infantry under 200m.

I have tried to find a defensive position other than the interior of buildings for infantry which will keep them concealed but have found pretty much only trees will help with that. Normal bushes (even "tree" foliage bushes - in the editor) will only help marginally.

I don't like it. I think the 1.11 spotting worked quite a bit better. My feeling was that concealment needed to be improved rather than weakened in 1.11, so going further in the opposite direction isn't something I'm interested in.

Ignore the comment from Dan about it being "imaginary" from a "few instances in the demo"... see the actual tests in the 1-1 infantry thread and the explanation from Charles about what was changed. Dan has no idea how many times I tested what, he's shooting his mouth off.

Also it is helpful to run the training scenario (first on the list) hotseat against yourself, and give the defenders in the trenches "hide" orders. Park the Strykers away somewhere if you want to just see what the infantry can see. The most notable thing is the HMG's can no longer stay hidden in the trenches, even if they don't fire.

They have a habit of changing things without documenting them fully, if at all... so maybe (fingers crossed) they will decide to tone it down for the final release, if it's not too late.

Oh, and someone might suggest that there are other places than the official forum where these things can be discussed with me without the need to worry about someone taking offense to the discussion.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Huh. I had quite forgotten "avl90" was Pillar aka Adaml aka Adam1 aka Adam.

So, aside from the drama, of the banning, has anyone tried the game? I fired up the British demo scenario but frontal assaults over open ground never did interest me much and I lost interest after three or four turns. As for "spotting", I never did see any Syrians, but then, wasn't much of a fair test.

 

[avl90]

Did you miss everything after my first paragraph?

 

[Redwolf]

Thanks for the report, Pillar.

You should ask Don to change your username to Pillar, you are too low key now.

I have no doubt your observations are accurate and as you say Charles confirmed important parts.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Did you miss everything after my first paragraph?

You boiled it down to four words without apparently knowing it.

I don't like it.

I don't see anything there that seems egregious, to be honest. Scrub in the desert - I dunno, why would you argue that it should hide an HMG and two man crew indefinitely? Ditto flat rooftops. Seems like an odd sword to hoist yourself on.

They have a habit of changing things without documenting them fully, if at all

The lack of user documentation was something brought up early, and I'll agree with it. The in-game reporting is also poor, compared to CMX1. I don't know that badgering them on the forum is going to lead to satisfactory results; user expectations are generally diverse, Steve and Charles tend to have their own vision which may or many not be influenced by user feedback - and what degree it does get influenced is - I suspect - incidental (i.e. if they decide to do something a user has suggested, they'll play it up on the forum as a P.R. talking point, but it isn't something they go out of their way to do - and I'm not suggesting they should or that such behaviour should be considered unusual), and getting that feedback from the user past the beta test brigade playing "goalkeeper" of "spin doctor" on the forum is often difficult in itself. And I think their reliance on feedback is minimal in the end, anyway, but there is no real way of knowing, as they don't accurately report from whence each every idea comes from (not suggesting they should do that either.)

Otherwise, it seems like many of the conflicts surrounding the Brit demo, at least as far as those points brought up so far on this forum are concerned, revolve around personal opinions on how far spotting, cover and concealment should be tweaked.

The BFC forum is talking about mine strikes attached to different AI plans, on-map mortars, and other features. I'd be interested in hearing more about some of the "bigger" features. Surely tweaking of cover/spotting issues don't overshadow these.

 

[dalem]

Every camel has a straw level that can break its back.

-dale

 

[Geordie]

Seems to me that they have released this demo to get some sort of feedback? Then again, maybe not. Only 1 in 10 of their customers register on the forum and half? of those dont post??? If you work that back then CMSF Brits has only got about 500 customers....

I cant download the demo here (far too big) but I may be able to get V 2.0.

Is it worth getting though?

Also, with CMN right around the corner and brits still not out, I suspect that 2.0 will be the final version of SF. So more about what its actually like please, cheers.

 

[avl90]

You boiled it down to four words without apparently knowing it.

I did? You're too clever for me Michael!

I don't see anything there that seems egregious, to be honest. Scrub in the desert - I dunno, why would you argue that it should hide an HMG and two man crew indefinitely? Ditto flat rooftops. Seems like an odd sword to hoist yourself on.

Nobody said anything remotely like this. Obviously that four word summary didn't help you. I'm not going to bother with this, but I'll give you one hint: we weren't talking about flat rooftops.

Later Gator.

 

[Redwolf]

Looks like most of the critical threads on BFC got closed now. Problem solved.

The code version is 1.20, not 2.0, BTW.

 

[dalem]

They are in full turtle mode and have been for a while now. There is no way any comment from any source that is not a simple positive is going to be perceived as anything but a threat.

If you're an old timer you get the hater label and are mocked.

If you're a new guy you get vacuous platitudes and I'm sure are ignored (though I haven't seen that specific behavior yet).

If either version persists in actual criticism you're on the short list for banishment.

I'm actually surprised that the forum is still so open at this point. The next logical move for that kind of mentality is to require a unique product code to be able to post.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, as Geordie pointed out in the other thread, he's trying to keep this forum less about the politics on the other one. You can see I've been also trying to steer the conversation towards the actual demo. While I can sympathize with Adam's banishment, I think the only comment I would make publicly about it is that it lacks a certain class for BFC to have kept the thread open after dropping the hammer on him, and for the beta testers to start posting post-mortems on him - almost like eulogies. It was really in bad taste. I am not saying BFC intended for that to happen, but it is unfortunate that it did. I have nothing else to say about individual banishments on other forums as they probably aren't a proper subject for discussion here IMO unless something really super-criminal took place. Adam asked to be banned and he was, case closed.

So back on topic, I'm seeing two things - not a lot of positive feedback on 1.2 or the Brits - though perhaps it is because people are actually, like, playing the thing instead of posting rapturously about it, and secondly that the negative comments seem to be focused largely on tweakable stuff that is largely a matter of opinion.

It may also be that the big-time "haters" (and I "hate" that term) have simply abandoned their interest in the game, and this demo is not enough to arouse further comment. Time will tell. I do like the mine-strike dealie and any tweaks to the scenario editor like that are welcome. On to Normandy, I guess, barring any other "surprises."

 

[avl90]

Looks like a new demo was quietly released. Most of the mirrors have the new one but atmic gamer is still stamped for the 24th. Notable changes in infantry spotting. Setup the same test as before with the Kornet and now the Stryker spots rather than the airguard, and it takes them a full minute to do so. Also noted that the HMGs in the training scenario can now stay hidden in the trenches with their hide orders, won't be spotted by blue until they get closer.

Funny how things work there... but I'm glad they did it.

 

[Redwolf]

Edit: the files stamped 24th and 27th (downloaded from BFC a minute ago) are identical internally, only the timestamp is different.

 

[avl90]

http://www.gamershell.com/download_48896.shtml This is the one I thought may be updated.

I got different results with identical situations so I was assuming they were different. Is it possible they just changed a variable in a number somewhere in the code?

 

[Redwolf]

http://www.gamershell.com/download_48896.shtml This is the one I thought may be updated.

I got different results with identical situations so I was assuming they were different. Is it possible they just changed a variable in a number somewhere in the code?

That file is different but only because gamershell wraps the original exe in a zipfile with additional junk advertising for them. The CMSF_demo installer that is inside the zipfile is identical to the other two.

Do you still have what you think is an old installer?

 

[avl90]

No, I guess it was wishful thinking after seeing some variance in the results. I was looking for something to explain it and saw the different dates and concluded it must be a new build. Sorry.