Strong pre-sales may influence pushing back release date?

[Sgt_Kelly]

It doesn't take much for the red mist to come down, does it.

"I'm sure you suck at your pesky little job."

Dear oh dear.

 

[dalem]

Yeah, to quote Hit Girl: "What a douche."

-dale

 

[KG_Jag]

Sadly it appears that the gun has retained its hair trigger. If things fall a certain way, it looks like we'll be at "here we go again."

 

[Michael Dorosh]

[video=youtube;t1smjcA2FDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1smjcA2FDg[/video]

Seems like the right time to announce this.

Wanted to see how hard it really is to do the whole video thing so I spent the day relearning Windows Movie Maker. Also downloaded FRAPS and found the codecs don't seem to be working out for my CMAK...or something...updated my video card drivers (never did that since the hard drive crash) but still something weird. I can get good screenshots but no good movies.

But I digress. I'm sure there are more than a few things you can pick apart with the above, but the product is legit. I'm hoping to get it out before the game, but it wouldn't be so bad to have it in hand before the Journal gets put to bed, either.

 

[carl_render]

Well done.

I know. I'm dead proud of myself!
On a more serious note, I think Steve could easily have made the point about resources without hurling insults at the poster who was merely expressing his disappointment at the graphics.

 

[dalem]

I know. I'm dead proud of myself!
On a more serious note, I think Steve could easily have made the point about resources without hurling insults at the poster who was merely expressing his disappointment at the graphics.

No he couldn't.

And remain Steve.

-dale

 

[carl_render]

He could also easily have pointed out that the graphics in most other wargames (as opposed to RTS) made by small independent companies are far worse than CMSF/CMBN.
Perhaps he should help those that are disappointed with the graphics put things into perspective rather than suggest they are probably rubbish at their jobs!

 

[Jeph]

Incorrect. A script doesn't "know" anything, not even in quotes.

The timed AI script 'knows' nothing at all.

...

the AI is not respondingly strategically to the situation in the slightest, except by chance (or the the designer has been cunning in the scenario design).

Er I know how it works. The opening moves have essentially been plotted by a human opponent, the scenario designer, who does know what is going on.

Sure it can break down later because the AI script does not respond to anything ever but it can be a bit of fun.

 

[dalem]

Sure it can break down later because the AI script does not respond to anything ever but it can be a bit of fun.

Wow, where do I send my money for that gem of an endorsement?

-dale

 

[carl_render]

Er I know how it works. The opening moves have essentially been plotted by a human opponent, the scenario designer, who does know what is going on.

Sure it can break down later because the AI script does not respond to anything ever but it can be a bit of fun.

IMO it depends on the amount of time, energy, skill the scenario desiner puts in. With the right combination of map and AI script a fairly convincing opponent can be created. The Badinni Dilemma scenario is a good example.

But you are always aware you are playing something that has been scripted.

 

[Jeph]

You keep trying very hard to make this personal and get an emotional reaction from me.

Is there a reason?

I don't really care about your reaction, but your sniggering at Moon's accent (he's from a whole other country where they don't speak English) and bagging this guys video bothers me slightly.

The video is not that great as promotional material, but it's what the guy does. "Dude seriously needs to go to film school and learn how to edit." He puts his whole game in a video with commentary. ie no edits.

 

[thewood]

IMO it depends on the amount of time, energy, skill the scenario desiner puts in. With the right combination of map and AI script a fairly convincing opponent can be created. The Badinni Dilemma scenario is a good example.

But you are always aware you are playing something that has been scripted.

There are some big issues with scripting the AI in CMSF beyond its iron clad adherence to the plan. The biggest one is not being able to issue any orders at start up. This is why blue does not work well on the AI side. It can't acquire any of the AT assets availble to it. Think about US GI's on the AI side not having access to AT assets or ammo. That is what we live with right now.

I don't think anyone who has not built a scenario realizes just how limited the scripting really is. If you have ever played or designed a scenario in ArmA or OFP, you would be stunned that BFC thinks you can even play single player in CMSF. Just the limited number of groups is also a huge hinderence.

The whole AI plan thing is half baked and is in need of a serious overhaul. I am hoping simple things like cutting and pasting plans and groups will make it into CMBN. Otherwise, I think there arer going to be some very disappointed WW2 scenario builders.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

He puts his whole game in a video with commentary. ie no edits.

There's no need to point out the obvious; my entire objection was clearly stated - i.e. the fact that there were in fact, no edits to the material.

As I said, if others find value in it, fill your boots. I can see it. For me, I can't imagine finding much value in spending 90 minutes watching someone else play a game. Perhaps if I was desperate for tips on how to get better, and he was an acknowledged grand master. Even then, I think I would - personally - be fishing for someone with editorial experience.

 

[carl_render]

There are some big issues with scripting the AI in CMSF beyond its iron clad adherence to the plan. The biggest one is not being able to issue any orders at start up. This is why blue does not work well on the AI side. It can't acquire any of the AT assets availble to it. Think about US GI's on the AI side not having access to AT assets or ammo. That is what we live with right now.

I don't think anyone who has not built a scenario realizes just how limited the scripting really is. If you have ever played or designed a scenario in ArmA or OFP, you would be stunned that BFC thinks you can even play single player in CMSF. Just the limited number of groups is also a huge hinderence.

The whole AI plan thing is half baked and is in need of a serious overhaul. I am hoping simple things like cutting and pasting plans and groups will make it into CMBN. Otherwise, I think there arer going to be some very disappointed WW2 scenario builders.

Your points are well made. If blue cannot be set up to aquire AT assets then it has to be set up with them at the outset. It limits the possibilities, as do the other restrictions you cite.

I have never used the editor, so am speaking as a user of other peoples scenarios. I have personally found many of them to be tactically challenging and a satisfying and fun experience. Others not so, but this was the same with CM1.

On the other hand there is no doubt IMO that the scripted AI in CMX2 is more 'in your face' than the CM1 AI. Sometimes when playing CMSF I think 'yeah thats the scripting - how dumb!'. I never had that in CM1.

It is far more critical in CMX2 that the scenario designer gets it right. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't really care about your reaction, but your sniggering at Moon's accent (he's from a whole other country where they don't speak English) and bagging this guys video bothers me slightly.

Oh, one thing to note also. English is a common second language in Europe as anyone who has ever been there knows. Suggesting "they don't speak English" is fatuous - you can very comfortably travel to Europe and speak nothing but English today. The point I have made in the past though is that Martin is the person paid to make executive decisions about marketing for his company. He has all kinds of resources at his disposal, including enthusiastic volunteers to produce all kinds of things, like the AARs we've seen, and even short videos if he wanted, I am sure. He's paid to know, in short, what things look and sound like. The video he did, personally, of the one sided game with one force being massacred was ludicrous for a number of reasons. Not everyone shares the same sense of humour where that goes, but I think most would look at some of the more professional video previews that BFC did put together for CMSF and hold them up next to that AAR and at the very least see a difference in terms of quality.

Furthermore, his accent isn't the problem in it's own - it's something else you need to be aware of, and in marketing, it's a resource you have to manage, just like anything else. Look at Ken Burn's Civil War series. Shelby Foote's accent - a soft southern drawl - adds to his credibility as an expert on the Confederacy. But he's photographed sitting down, in front of a bookshelf, and is either well rehearsed or at the very least speaking in his native tongue. It comes off very well. Accents are used for good effect all the time; a German accent or any European accent can add a touch of class or hint at education and breeding. But it has to be done right. Stumbling through unscripted material and using inappropriate words clearly isn't the way to do that. It's like having typos in advertising copy - someone trained in communications would naturally find it funny to see that kind of thing done poorly. And I do.

 

[carl_render]

I think most would look at some of the more professional video previews that BFC did put together for CMSF and hold them up next to that AAR and at the very least see a difference in terms of quality.

I agree with that. I really cannot understand why BFC would have wanted to release the VAAR.
Tyrspawn did a good job on a video of the CMSF campaign after the game had been out for some time, but as a pre-release piece of marketing material I think BFC did much better with their own vids - the CMA ones were pretty good.

 

[Redwolf]

No way I'm gonna watch that youtube video. Down that path lies doom.

I take it that the high level view looks like CMSF when it comes to terrain feature balance, which isn't surprising at all.

Now where's my NATO module?

 

[carl_render]

No way I'm gonna watch that youtube video. Down that path lies doom.

I take it that the high level view looks like CMSF when it comes to terrain feature balance, which isn't surprising at all.

Now where's my NATO module?

Yep. I was really looking forward to CMBN until I watched the vid. Now I'm thinking its CMSF v1.31. Maybe my expectations were too high.

 

[Redwolf]

It's very hard to make a game like this that looks good when looking at the terrain from the top, and it is even harder if you are not willing to compress the ranges like many games do. CMx1 was an accidental fluke in this regard and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.

CMx2 is probably best enjoyed from a low viewpoint.

Releasing that video was probably a mistake. I remember that I watched this person's CMSF video after I couldn't figure out where the fun in the game is supposed to be and had a similar letdown.

Just preorder and have a seat.

 

[junk2drive]

All of the advice that I saw from beta testers was to play CMSF or the demo to see what CMBN was going to be like. I did, got excited, then not so much. I'll wait and see.

Maybe a couple of years and updates will make it what most people want it to be.