Within reason, what would be needed to "finish" CMSF?

[Rule_303]

I didn't want to hijack thewood's thread, so I started a new one.

We've all been over the flaws, fundamental or not, in CMSF -- e.g.

• the choice of setting and weak opponent

• the "not-quite-1-to-1" action spot-tied infantry model

• the bad pathing and bizarre unit behavior

• the absence of a competent QB generator

• the klunky editor

• the inability to cherry pick forces

• the lack of trigger points for AI

• the lack of hidden emplacements

• all the other stuff we've beaten to death

So for those of you who -- like me -- still accept (appreciate?) CMSF for what it is in its current form (i.e. still get satisfaction from playing it in spite of the above flaws, or ever did), and also accept that BFC is a 1.x programmer shop that is shifting its attention to the next revenue-generating product (CMN), what do you think BFC should or could deliver with its NATO module and final patch that would in your mind create a reasonably "finished" product?

:crosseye:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Functional completeness would in all honesty require a much shorter list than that which you've included. I think the fundamental game is there. It's not a game I like or would spend much time on, and yes, I think it is fundamentally flawed, but it is pretty much there.

I would suggest, though, that there are some things that would prevent CM:SF from ever being 'complete', just as was the case with CM:X1. That doesn't mean you can't continue to play it. I would list the lack of hidden emplacements as one of them. They won't ever be "fixed", and that's not even on the radar of the developers. Other things like lack of convoy orders ("follow me") etc. are other things that were never promised and would be unfair to include on the list also.

I'd stick to known "bugs" rather than wish-list type stuff.

I actually get the impression CM:SF is about as close to functionally complete as CM:BB was - i.e. playable and stable going forward to the next major release with one or two minor bugs (in CM:BB it was StuG armor, for example.)

 

[Redwolf]

Any form of fortifications with FoW.

The pathing.

The rest I wouldn't care too much about as it is mostly the Beta's problem, who make the scenarios, and have somehow convinced themselves that it isn't that bad.

 

[Rule_303]

The pathing.

Are you referring here to the lack of proper road-following or "Follow me / do as I do" orders for vehicles (or infantry)?

Or is it the unnecessary (and lethal) "milling about" of squads around the action spots? The latter bugs me far more, although I'd certainly welcome a fix to the former.

 

[Rule_303]

Functional completeness would in all honesty require a much shorter list than that which you've included. I think the fundamental game is there.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that any or all of the items on the bullet list HAD to be fixed/added to CMSF for it to be functionally complete, although one could certainly take that position.

I'm interested here in surfacing issues that materially impair gameplay or realism for the users AND seem to have a straightforward "fix" that doesn't involve a massive overhaul or buildout of CMSF, but for some reason haven't been addressed.

For example, C3K was complaining on the BFC forum about the primitive scenario menu and how just a couple of simple adds that are common in other games would make things much better for him. That's the kind of thing I was thinking of.

 

[KG_Jag]

Let's remember the context. It has been 3+ years since CMSF was released and so many patches have been issued that Paradox won't issue the latest one. BF is waay behind its release schedule. Money to be made is from successful releases of the second and third games using the new engine(s). CMSF + modules have very limited income potential. BF's programming resources are still very limited.

So only easy and quick fixes of CMSF game engine problems make sense. I'm not sure that the number of these is 0 or something greater.

Almost all efforts should be to make improvements/advances in newer versions of the (further redesigned/rebuilt) engine that will appear as CMA and CMN. CMN is obviously the most important of the two--by a very wide margin. This is where BF should, and I hope is, putting 80%, 90% or even more of its programing resources.

With regard to marketing--they better improve on their "gefaux" about CMSF NATO module and the French. Of course--and most importantly--they need finished new products to promote.

 

[Geordie]

I would only add that I think all that would have been done with CMSF has been done for about a year. The infantry model is never going to change and so it's still a 1-1/abstract hybrid that most people don't seem to get. That's fine for them but BF sell it as a true 1-1 game to the masses.

The setting pretty much drove the rest of the game. What middle east army could seriously bother NATO forces?

I think they have pretty much tried to include everything they can by mow, even down to the stuff they said would never be in as it involved too much suspension of disbelief, Red Air anyone.

I think at the time it was in development BF saw a hug he market for an Iraq simulator. The trouble is, by the time they got it working everyone was fed up with that debacle. Unfortunately CMSf seems to be all about IED's and asymmetry, which is at times a bit too close to reality.

Iink it does OK as an Iraqi simulAtor by the way.

 

[thewood]

Four main items still remain in my opinion:

1) There is still something wrong with how even the highest level Syrians react under fire. And there is something wrong with US crews with how much firepower it takes to rattle them.

2) Still a large number of sighting issues. It is just beyond belief that regular Syrians can't spot a huge M1 200m away with optics. Infantry having eyes in the back of their heads is also not right.

3) QBs just plain don't work even as CMSF was designed.

4) Pathing is still not very good. I have to keep an eye on all units moving because you never know when one them will go on a joy ride.

I think a number of these are not brought up much because they are only noticeable from the Syrian side.

 

[Redwolf]

Are you referring here to the lack of proper road-following or "Follow me / do as I do" orders for vehicles (or infantry)?

Or is it the unnecessary (and lethal) "milling about" of squads around the action spots? The latter bugs me far more, although I'd certainly welcome a fix to the former.

Anything that takes the path I plotted and invents a new one. Usually in a way that shows weak side or even rear armour to the enemy or otherwise threatens my unit.