KG_Jag
08-12-2007, 08:36 PM
Here it is by Rob Pollard:
"Hi All,
Got time to play my first scenario since the patch came out. What's
changed from the ground so to speak and whats still not good? Here are my
views, just remember this is only one battle!
Good:
1. There is now an option in the options screen to allow the game to take
higher priority for processor usage. The readme notes state that selecting
this might cause mouse lag, but get better overall performance. Wheh I tried
it I got a marked improvement in performance and no mouse lag! Cool. This
could be down to the fact that my machine is dual core? Game now runs pretty
good now.
2. Troop survivability. Prior to the patch, if I kicked my men out of the
strykers, they would get mown down even before they had a chance to form up.
In this scenario I received very few casualties when I dismounted them. In
fact my highest troop losses occured when they were passengers of a vehicle
that got hit. This is pretty much what I'd expect. Now I don't know if this
is down to me employing better tactics (nowadays I pound the enemy with
supressive and get a stryker or two to pop smoke then get the infantry to
deploy behind the smoke).
3. One can now give orders in Elite mode whilst the game is paused! Now I
can plan attacks with simultaneous movement. Now I can mull things over.
Battle front should never have disabled this as there are many people in a
unit that in real life would give orders, not just one controlling person.
The Bad.
1. Path Finding. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!! Especially vehicle path finding. To
give you an example. Imagine my troops are in the desert in their strykers
that have formed a rough line around 2 deep. My strykers are busy pounding
the enemy and I decide to get some of the lead strykers to pop smoke and
deploy smoke. In this situation I'd expect the smoke to pop and the men to
leave the strykers by the rear then settle down into the ground. What
actually happens, is that my strykers decide that they actually need to move
to deploy my troops! What they did was turn side ways onto the field of fire
(great idea - not) and travel down the whole battle line, before driving
through the battle line (rear now exposed) then driving back to the rough
spot where they were, then they deploy the troops! WTF!!???
Battlefront, I gave my Strykers NO movement orders, I just dismounted my
troops. WTF do they feel they have to perform a grand tour of the forward
battle lines? From a coders point of view why don't they code the vehicles
to do excactly what the players want them to do? Surely this would be easier
to implement as you are using the players intelligence instead of the
game's.
Luckily for me I took no casulaties from this, but it does make one fume.
2. Enemy AI. Don't know if its the nature of the scenarios I play, but they
seem pretty static. No flank attacks or withdrawal by phase lines here. They
just hang out in their start locations and get pounded into the ground. The
original CM's were much better than this. One would always get suprises into
the original CM. The enemy were much more fluid there.
3. The ATGM section. CMSF allows one to pick part of their squad so that you
can order them to do stuff. Unfortunatley some twat of a programmer decided
it would be a good idea to put a timer on this selection. So you pick for
instance the ATGM section scroll and position the map to the target you want
them to hit, then just as you click the target the game defaults back to
full squad selection mode and you lose your targetting marker!!! WTF is the
point of this feature other than to irritate players?
4. There are slopes in CMSF that vehicles cannot climb. To me, they don't
look that steep and they certainly don't look too different from the slopes
that vehicles can climb. I don't mind this, but if the designers are going
to do this the player needs some kind of feedback. As an example you can
click a vehicle to move a few mtrs forward to crest a slope. The movement
marker goes down no problem and shows a nice direct path - cool. The vehicle
then starts moving then one notices that it is taking a magical mystery tour
to get there! Players need feedback! Maybe the game can replot the AI's
intention and use that plot to replace the players plot like in Harpoon2 and
3?.
5. Trenches. These things still shimmer like crazy when moving the camera.
This shimering is a result of the trenches being there one second, then
disapearing the next like they cannot make their mind up. Even worse,
trenches cannot be seen until you are almost on top of them. The code for
this needs looking at.
Overall I'm enjoying the game, but it is still a long way from being a
classic. If battlefront can get it tuned up and sorted out, they will have
an engine that can be used in a variety of theatres (from early 1900's
onwards), that now many other wargame companies will be able to match.
RobP"
Here's the link to the tread he started on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_thread/thread/af48dfc71de8d16a/d42f460030b06f2d#d42f460030b06f2d
"Hi All,
Got time to play my first scenario since the patch came out. What's
changed from the ground so to speak and whats still not good? Here are my
views, just remember this is only one battle!
Good:
1. There is now an option in the options screen to allow the game to take
higher priority for processor usage. The readme notes state that selecting
this might cause mouse lag, but get better overall performance. Wheh I tried
it I got a marked improvement in performance and no mouse lag! Cool. This
could be down to the fact that my machine is dual core? Game now runs pretty
good now.
2. Troop survivability. Prior to the patch, if I kicked my men out of the
strykers, they would get mown down even before they had a chance to form up.
In this scenario I received very few casualties when I dismounted them. In
fact my highest troop losses occured when they were passengers of a vehicle
that got hit. This is pretty much what I'd expect. Now I don't know if this
is down to me employing better tactics (nowadays I pound the enemy with
supressive and get a stryker or two to pop smoke then get the infantry to
deploy behind the smoke).
3. One can now give orders in Elite mode whilst the game is paused! Now I
can plan attacks with simultaneous movement. Now I can mull things over.
Battle front should never have disabled this as there are many people in a
unit that in real life would give orders, not just one controlling person.
The Bad.
1. Path Finding. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!! Especially vehicle path finding. To
give you an example. Imagine my troops are in the desert in their strykers
that have formed a rough line around 2 deep. My strykers are busy pounding
the enemy and I decide to get some of the lead strykers to pop smoke and
deploy smoke. In this situation I'd expect the smoke to pop and the men to
leave the strykers by the rear then settle down into the ground. What
actually happens, is that my strykers decide that they actually need to move
to deploy my troops! What they did was turn side ways onto the field of fire
(great idea - not) and travel down the whole battle line, before driving
through the battle line (rear now exposed) then driving back to the rough
spot where they were, then they deploy the troops! WTF!!???
Battlefront, I gave my Strykers NO movement orders, I just dismounted my
troops. WTF do they feel they have to perform a grand tour of the forward
battle lines? From a coders point of view why don't they code the vehicles
to do excactly what the players want them to do? Surely this would be easier
to implement as you are using the players intelligence instead of the
game's.
Luckily for me I took no casulaties from this, but it does make one fume.
2. Enemy AI. Don't know if its the nature of the scenarios I play, but they
seem pretty static. No flank attacks or withdrawal by phase lines here. They
just hang out in their start locations and get pounded into the ground. The
original CM's were much better than this. One would always get suprises into
the original CM. The enemy were much more fluid there.
3. The ATGM section. CMSF allows one to pick part of their squad so that you
can order them to do stuff. Unfortunatley some twat of a programmer decided
it would be a good idea to put a timer on this selection. So you pick for
instance the ATGM section scroll and position the map to the target you want
them to hit, then just as you click the target the game defaults back to
full squad selection mode and you lose your targetting marker!!! WTF is the
point of this feature other than to irritate players?
4. There are slopes in CMSF that vehicles cannot climb. To me, they don't
look that steep and they certainly don't look too different from the slopes
that vehicles can climb. I don't mind this, but if the designers are going
to do this the player needs some kind of feedback. As an example you can
click a vehicle to move a few mtrs forward to crest a slope. The movement
marker goes down no problem and shows a nice direct path - cool. The vehicle
then starts moving then one notices that it is taking a magical mystery tour
to get there! Players need feedback! Maybe the game can replot the AI's
intention and use that plot to replace the players plot like in Harpoon2 and
3?.
5. Trenches. These things still shimmer like crazy when moving the camera.
This shimering is a result of the trenches being there one second, then
disapearing the next like they cannot make their mind up. Even worse,
trenches cannot be seen until you are almost on top of them. The code for
this needs looking at.
Overall I'm enjoying the game, but it is still a long way from being a
classic. If battlefront can get it tuned up and sorted out, they will have
an engine that can be used in a variety of theatres (from early 1900's
onwards), that now many other wargame companies will be able to match.
RobP"
Here's the link to the tread he started on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_thread/thread/af48dfc71de8d16a/d42f460030b06f2d#d42f460030b06f2d