More retrograde action in CM Modules

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93584

Interesting thread.

o In the unit editor, when you rename a unit that is not a formation (e.g. squad, vehicle) the name change applies to that unit's leader, not the unit itself.


I dislike this tremendously - Why can't we give names to units (and have it show up that way on the map within their icon, like before).

This has completely messed up much of my prior work - Or at the least made it much more confusing for me on the map to know which units are which.....

I have mixed feelings about this too, along with the other editor change that skips the upper floor doors when ctrl-clicking buildings.

This is just a silly and not needed taking away of customer options here. With us paying $25 to boot.

I dont understand why they would want to put this feature from afghanistan into CMSF, no sense.

to be honest, afghanistan was probably the worst purchase of my life, 27 euros and ive only played about 4 missions into the first campaign. reason? I felt it was simply a game. I felt no atachment to the units I was commanding.
im not saying work did not go into it, but when I bought it I was expecting briefings such as the ones in CMSF, not the regular, "the enemy is comming, kill them" we get in a scenario briefing...this also went into the generic "1 platoon, Alpha Coy, 1st batallion" on the units, what did you just pop the units you wanted in the editor and didnt bother to give them a back story? it felt that way. the best thing about CMSF is that everywhere you look you get a sense of belonging with these small, but important details, with this gone...It removes modders to deliver this sense of story in their scenarios, campaigns and stories...

its just sad

I strongly wish that this can be rethought, reimplemented, and our happYness reinstated

We keep talking about the prospect of CM:N adding more features that CM:SF had stripped out of CM:X1, and yet the trend now seems to be that the CMX2 game engine itself is in retrograde?

Or are these posters simply hysterical. No official response from BFC yet. Will wait for a more official word with interest.

 

[slm]

The new features that CMN is supposed to add should move CMx2 quite a few steps closer to CMx1 feature set. Haven't done anything with 1.30 Editor, so no idea if those new Editor tweaks would bother me...

 

[Geordie]

I didn't get the NATO module, but am looking forward to the new patch. Spent my money on Napoleon TW this month.

Off topic, but does anyone have Histwar? If so, how does it play compared to TW games?

 

[Redwolf]

NATO is 1.30?

 

[Elvis]

NATO is 1.30?

Yes it is.

 

[Geordie]

Strange, I felt the opposite about Afghanistan than the poster quoted above. I spent a lot of time playing it, more than with CMSF since it came out. A minor point, but the interface looks much nicer too, pity they couldn't do the same for SF.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I watched the thread, and Steve just put another bullet into the head of customer relations.

Correct. The way it works now is the way it was ALWAYS supposed to work. There was a bug in previous versions that is now fixed. The feature is supposed to allow you to rename Formations and Leaders, not the names of individual Squads, Teams, or Vehicles.

I would like the option to switch it back, as it always was.

We are not planning on changing it back to the way it was. There's very little reason to have Squads, Teams, or Vehicles individually named. Which is why we never intended the game to behave like that. On the contrary, there are a LOT of reasons to want the Leader renamed. We hadn't realized there was a bug until people started trying to rename leaders for historical scenarios in Normandy.

Umm...there are some reference books that list every single person on the order of battle of a company; why not have the ability to list all the squad leaders' names? You could certainly throw in at least one or two for a unit such as Company E of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, given their fame ala Band of Brothers.

This stubborn refusal seems ridiculous - especially since, as Steve points out, it was in the code to begin with and they purposefully deleted this ability despite the desire to have it. It also hurts nothing to have it, since the default is to use the pre-made names.

Just plain not getting this; maybe someone else can explain.

EDIT: Steve says later:

Charles went about this quite straight forward. The testers pointed out that they couldn't name their Leaders, Charles said "sure you can", and then he noticed that there was a bug. Because it was never the intention to allow naming of Squads/Teams/Vehicles it didn't seem like a problem to fix the bug in the most straight forward manner. Which meant losing the functionality for naming Squads/Teams/Vehicles.

Now that it's clear to us that people HAVE been using this feature, and that there is "legitimate" functionality to it, we're looking into what it will take for people to have their cake and eat it too.

Perhaps it is only the way the message was brought forward - and the fact people apparently had to beat him over the head to get him to listen. He dismisses meade's points but listened to one of the more senior posters. Though I don't know what "legitimate" has to do with it or why that was ever in doubt.

 

[dalem]

Well, I watched the thread, and Steve just put another bullet into the head of customer relations.



Umm...there are some reference books that list every single person on the order of battle of a company; why not have the ability to list all the squad leaders' names? You could certainly throw in at least one or two for a unit such as Company E of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, given their fame ala Band of Brothers.

This stubborn refusal seems ridiculous - especially since, as Steve points out, it was in the code to begin with and they purposefully deleted this ability despite the desire to have it. It also hurts nothing to have it, since the default is to use the pre-made names.

Just plain not getting this; maybe someone else can explain.

EDIT: Steve says later:



Perhaps it is only the way the message was brought forward - and the fact people apparently had to beat him over the head to get him to listen. He dismisses meade's points but listened to one of the more senior posters. Though I don't know what "legitimate" has to do with it or why that was ever in doubt.

It'll probably be one of those things that ends up being a Charles "Oh, yeah, it was easy to have both so I just made it that way." moment.

Really, Steve needs to just never ever post again. Ever. Turn that "face of BFC" duty over to Dan since MadMatt's gone. He is pure poison for his brand. Pure, unadulterated poison.

-dale