Matrix Games Forums

I'm actually having a hard time understanding how the action area meshes with 1-1 representation, as the two concepts appear contradictory unless the area size is small enough to represent the location of an individual.

This is abstracted. Or to put it another way, they traded one abstraction for another and called it improved.

In the military, they always emphasize intervals. Spread out, get your interval. Even on chow-line, don't bunch up. When digging in, we were dug in 2 men to a position with 20 meters between positions. This could vary depending on terrain, fields of fire, etc.. So we were spread out over many 'action-spots'.

The game seems to 'spot one of ya, spot ya all'. Relative spotting means they spot you, they spot your brothers. But supposedly, the individual 1:1 digi-trooper gets terrain bennies. But not 100% sure how that all works out.

There's cover and concealment. Seems concealment takes a hit. Did they also trade one for another?

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
In the latter case, you have more flexibility to do so, if you wanted to have drop off of, say, weapons effects at the 250, 350 etc. metre mark.
Is this perhaps the type of thing he's getting at? I believe that is what you mean by granularity, anyway?

Also flexibility of maneuver. The more "hexes" the more room to do things, regardless of scale.

8m seems like a pretty good "grain" for this scale of combat, then. The old system was a 20 metre terrain grid; I think some game functions were on a 2 metre sub-grid, at least unit placement was.

See that's what I don't understand. Is 8m where each vehicle/soldier is located, or vehicle/squad/heavy weapon? 8m seems (to me anyway) too large an area for 1 person and too small an area for a group.

These are pretty deep details that most gamers don't get into; I must confess an interest in them myself, so the conversation is interesting to me.

The only reason I bring it up is that it appears to be noticeable and jarring with the screen representation of what's happening. At least that's the way it reads. I couldn't get the demo to run on my machine, so I can't tell how it plays. Obviously as I play many games where divisions are stacked up on top of each other in a hex 10's of miles wide, abstraction doesn't always destroy the suspension of belief, I'm just curious how SF works because it doesn't "feel" right from reading. Obviously, playing it may be a different matter.

So what is it we are saying about the strengths/weaknesses of the 8m grid?

See above, is the 8m grid a location of an individual or group? It just doesn't seem to be a scale which suits either in a 1-1 small unit game.

Hi gents - been a while since I posted, but I feel pretty strongly about this one. I bought this one on pre-order (which was stupid, yes), but I have to say I haven't felt this burned by a game for a long long time.

Supposedly posted by battlefront a couple years ago..

3 CM games released to date, dozens of awards including 3 PC Gamer Strategy Turn Based Game of the year awards (2000,2002,2003) plus a Computer Gaming World Wargame of the Year award (2002). Games that have been sold in virtually every single country on Earth. All of it, based upon an unproven game concept and idea and a vision by a virtually unknown, small software company. And now we stand, on the cusp of the next generation of wargaming realism and fun.

Those of you who trusted us before were rewarded with games that met or surpassed your expectations. Those of you who doubted us and complained? Well you got the same damn gameplay and still loved it!

So, maybe, just maybe WE KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING!

I think they should re-read that now over a nice warm glass of STFU.

Please stick to discussing the game and let's not make this personal regarding Battlefront.

To be perfectly clear, discussing CMSF here is fine as long as it's a discussion, but any attacks on Battlefront are not ok. They have a forum of their own and I'm sure they'd appreciate the chance to respond, as would we if the situation were reversed. I understand some folks don't like CMSF and some do, that's fine, but stick to discussing the game here please.

Regards,

- Erik

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002600;p=7
 
Fair enough.  Here's a good post between a waffling flip-flopper, a kitchen sink and a evolving forward thinking developer and a slippery-slope-sneaker.

If I were BF I would revamp thegame and target the military market.

I would design it so that the 'player' commands a company mix. A couple platoons of M1's and a Bradly platoon, or one M1 tank platoon and two Bradleys, or a Bradley platoon and two Humvee platoons, etc.

The infantry AI would be fixed so that the company commander does not have to micromanage the infantry. Infantry use drills to do things and that has to be coded (I have been saying this for years..)

The other companies are controlled by other training LTs and Captains. Enemy may likewise be controlled by AI or real 'players'.

Platoon movement orders for vehicles must be given in a quick tempo without using that awful interface.

I'll dig this one up just to say that 1.03 is actually a huge improvement, if not a total cure-all. This is the version that should have been released.

The 1.03 demo should have been the version that was pre-released

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ulti ... 002792;p=1

In addition to gameplay fixes, the graphics have been radically upgraded; thread above has comparison screen shots

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ulti ... p=4#000076

Try this post in particular.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002600;p=7
 
This is a good page also

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002803
 
Here's a better discussion of 1.03

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002797
 
This one's pretty good too.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002794
 
And another one.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=013287
 
This one has amazingly little to do with CM:SF but features a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Did you get banned from BF?

Ok, that'll be enough, thanks.

I apologize for the silliness; for those interested, though, the first of my posts does have some comparison screenshots of the 1.03 patch. In addition to gameplay fixes, there are graphical upgrades. I don't mean just skins, but a new way of displaying the old ones that adds much greater depth to the old textures and provides much sharper detail at all distances. I'm not a big "graphics" guy, but there's a great difference. There are also obvious other changes like improved pathfinding, etc. As usual, anyone interested in learning more is welcome to post at the BF.C forums and find out more.

Because you can't have it both ways. You seem to be trying to play to two different audiences. So yes, I do see your comments differ substantially from the remarks of others because they are extremely confused. I'm not saying you have to love or hate the game, and nothing inbetween, but you can't seem to make up your mind about what you like and don't like about it, or at least why you do or don't. I'm not the only one to notice this apparent split personality of your postings. Again, I don't expect you to have a black and white viewpoint, but it would be nice if it were at least consistent from post to post.
Steve @ battlefront

Michael
 
I don't want to ask on the BF forum, because I rarely post there, and nothing conclusive has come from the seqrch...so can I ask you here please...?
 
What of the WEGO system? Is it "dropped"? Has it been "fixed" in the latest patch?
 
1.02 showed no changes that I cared about for WEGO...and specifically what I am talking about is stacking of commands....so I can order my unit ot go to x, face y and target arc...etc.
 
Do you know f stacking of orders has been "fixed"?
 
I'll be downloading the 1.03 patch asap...but more wondering what the future of wego is?
 
Thx
Billy