Will CMSF get finished

[thewood]

I still play quite a bit and tonight I finally got fed up with a couple things.

1) The Syrians got these fancy new BMP3s and they don't use them. I have tried all ranges and experience level and the BMP3 refuses to fire its 30mm at armor of any kind. It keeps lobbing 100mm HE at LAVs.

2) I have tried crack Syrian BMP3s against regular Marine LAVs. As soon as the first 25mm comes in, the BMPs go to cautious and retreat. No matter how many times the LAVS got hit, even with detroyed wheels and fire control, their status never changed from OK. There has to be something in the system that definitely does not allow the Marines to panic, yet makes it too easy for the Syrians to become rattled. I have tried this over and over with the same results.

I have a feeling that this type of stuff is not getting fixed. There are a lot of little things that still need fixing, but I think BFC has moved on once again.

Any of you guys still playing and noticing this?

 

[junk2drive]

Sounds like how CMBB worked. Maybe they reused the code.

 

[Geordie]

I'm not saying this is true for the game, but whenever I do play it, the Syrians always seem like this to me. I haven't encountered your specific problem as I haven't made any scenarios and the QB system still doesn't work for me.

I get fed up with Syrians hiding behind houses after 2 minutes of incoming. Gets so that you know that's where they will be. I hope it's a code thing and not carried over to any new games.

 

[Rule_303]

This is a great topic.

As I understand it, BFC has stated that NATO just contains new units, campaign and scenarios, and that no new features will be added. The final patch will presumably fix some more bugs but probably not improve gameplay/realism in any fundamental way. They indicate (and we're hoping) that CMN will have some different features from CMSF (e.g. water, bridges and a bloody hack they finally admitted was needed to provide hidden foxholes).

But they have no plans to retroactively add any of these improvements into CMSF. Doing so would probably be a major undertaking for Charles (and Phillip).

Also, Steve has stated ambitions to release a successor modern warfare game set in a temperate environment against a more challenging Red opponent, and I assume he doesn't want an improved CMSF to be a competitor. Which is a real pity since on their current timeline CMSF is all those of us who like (computer) gaming modern warfare on the CM scale are likely to have available until what, 2014 or so?

It's a real pity they couldn't achieve their original ambitious goal of creating a robust universal tactical gaming engine you could use for everything from Hoplites to "Starship Troopers". Looks like the CMSF engine painted itself into enough corners to get out the door that they've had to start from scratch again. Don't blame them for trying, but it's a pity to leave what's now a decent though deeply flawed product unfinished, as you say. But I can't disagree with Steve's question: how would we recoup the costs of "finalizing" CMSF?

 

[thewood]

I think #1 was supposed to have been fixed in a previous pathc...guess not.

#2 is something I have never seen talked about. I think its because so few of the people still posting at BFC play any red. Most of the guys left just like to see the cool US toys blast away.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Has #2 been reported to BFC?

 

[thewood]

Its been talked about a couple times on the forum. I mentioned it back before 1.10 came out, but it was ignored.