Jump to content

Holdit

Members
  • Content Count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Aragorn2002 in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    Good point.
  2. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to PIATpunk in CM Battle for Normandy v4.03 patch has been released   
    I really think so.
  3. Like
    Holdit got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in CM Battle for Normandy v4.03 patch has been released   
    Do you really think so? 
  4. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Aquila-SmartWargames in Battlefront Poll   
    Another recent example is that there were people telling me that they got into CMSF2 because of the Heaven & Earth mod.
    If I hypothetically had zero interest in CMSF2´s Middle Eastern modern warfare setting but some interest in the Vietnam/Asian setting, I would buy CMSF2 just for it without thinking twice. I mentioned it several times while playing the Year of the Rat campaign on the stream and it was meant serious.
    I guess I have a lesser threshold than the average to spent money on wargames but if I assume that for some reason I had no interest in the default content of the other CM titles - which is not the case but hypothetically - but had for whatever reasons interest in user content such as the various mod/campaign projects, I would buy CM games just for them alone. Last week I bought two JTS games primarily in order to get my hands on total conversion mods.
  5. Upvote
    Holdit got a reaction from AlexUK in Battlefront Poll   
    Some posters seem to be assuming a false dichotomy when it comes to modding:  that either new material comes direct from the developers only or else it's the wild west. What I'd like to see is something more along the Linux model, where people can make/suggest changes, but only one authority can authorise their release into the game, and this would only refer to the more data-driven mods i.e. new theatres. The current system where visual and sound mods can vary according to the tastes of the player, would continue, because that doesn't affect anything important - for all you know, you opponent's panthers could be pink. In an ideal world,  I would see the place for modding - or third party development - would be in the area of new campaigns or theatres e.g. some modders get together and put together a package for the Winter War, and so the uniform graphics, the research for the weapons, maybe tweak some weather to account for extreme winter, etc. The weapon, TO&E, and vehicular data would be provided in a format specified by BF.  The modders or TPDs would run their own playtesting and provide the results to BF for review. BF would then run some of their own quality control and when satisfied, release it as a new module, which players would either have or not have, just as it is now with other modules. 
    All in an ideal world, of course.
    (Actually, in an idea world, BF would release one game including everything between 1936 and 1953 - next week... no, make that tomorrow...wait..this afternoon...)
     
  6. Like
    Holdit got a reaction from BarendJanNL in Battlefront Poll   
    Some posters seem to be assuming a false dichotomy when it comes to modding:  that either new material comes direct from the developers only or else it's the wild west. What I'd like to see is something more along the Linux model, where people can make/suggest changes, but only one authority can authorise their release into the game, and this would only refer to the more data-driven mods i.e. new theatres. The current system where visual and sound mods can vary according to the tastes of the player, would continue, because that doesn't affect anything important - for all you know, you opponent's panthers could be pink. In an ideal world,  I would see the place for modding - or third party development - would be in the area of new campaigns or theatres e.g. some modders get together and put together a package for the Winter War, and so the uniform graphics, the research for the weapons, maybe tweak some weather to account for extreme winter, etc. The weapon, TO&E, and vehicular data would be provided in a format specified by BF.  The modders or TPDs would run their own playtesting and provide the results to BF for review. BF would then run some of their own quality control and when satisfied, release it as a new module, which players would either have or not have, just as it is now with other modules. 
    All in an ideal world, of course.
    (Actually, in an idea world, BF would release one game including everything between 1936 and 1953 - next week... no, make that tomorrow...wait..this afternoon...)
     
  7. Upvote
    Holdit got a reaction from Probus in Battlefront Poll   
    There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.  
  8. Upvote
    Holdit got a reaction from Probus in Battlefront Poll   
    Or just look at the Linux community.  
  9. Upvote
    Holdit got a reaction from Probus in Battlefront Poll   
    I'd like to see something like this...one engine, just one, that will support all of the terrain, all of the building types, all of the weapons, for ETO, PTO (there's a lot more to it than beach assaults) and North Africa, with a limited selection of content for each.  One engine to buy, one engine to patch. Because of the vastly-increased  potential scope, out of the box, the game might contain a limited sample of unit types and vehicles across all theatres, just to get things going. A bit like the original Squad Leader, which only provided MKIV's,, Shermans and T-34/76's, one personnel carrier for each nation, regular infantry only, etc. At the same time, release the tools for others e.g. modders or contracted third parties to create the additional content e.g. database entries and graphics. Find some to way make it worth their while to get involved, but ultimate control for releasing content would rest with BF. That way they could concentrate on the engine while others get the theatres/campaigns out more quickly.
    I'm not claiming that this would be feasible or realistic, just what I'd ask for if the genie-of-the--wargame appeared and asked what my wish was.  Regarding CMx3, I have to say that I have no interest in buying multiple versions of another engine that after another 13 years is still likely to have covered the same ground as CMx2. I haven't even picked up the new CMFI release yet, so depleted is my enthusiasm for the way BF is doing things - still no fix for the CMBN bocage bug over a year after it was reported. The military contract thing doesn't sound encouraging; it just sounds like more time spent on that and less time on this. I've seen that happen before with another publisher.
     
  10. Like
    Holdit reacted to zmoney in is this the hedgrow bug v4????   
    This is me. Every time I fire it up I play for a while then one of the bugs rears it’s ugly head and I get disappointed. This is the reason I won’t buy Rome to Victory or the latest west front game, nor will I buy anything else until they release a patch to fix the few super frustrating bugs in an otherwise amazing game. Seriously it’s like two or three bugs that are keeping me on the sidelines.
  11. Like
    Holdit reacted to PIATpunk in is this the hedgrow bug v4????   
    the problem here is that the behaviour ruins a decent fight against the "AI" and suspension of disbelief is cancelled at that point when the enemy are gladly rushing towards you. And you can't issue orders to the "ai"
    I spotted the bug within 30 minutes of playing the patch release back in the day (and reported with saves etc)
    The only official Battlefront employees posting here have been happy to spend plenty of time espousing their beliefs regarding current military/political conflagrations or posting AARs about future modules requiring undying devotion to purchase; but FFS it's about time they started talking about what the dev is doing ( as he won't post here) on what he has done regarding a game breaking issue - I have spent fricking HUNDREDS of frickin dollars on investing in a system I expected would give me a fair fight (let alone time spent). And before the apologists butt in, I am specifically talking CMBN; although the behaviour can be observed in other modules.
     Rant not nearly over. 
    TL;DR:     talk to your customers (repeatedly) about their pain points or expect less income.  Or - declare that the residential support is useful but not as useful as the military dollar.
    Man. This is like Cleese hating the Commies (and then told it's time for tea).
     
     
     
     
     
  12. Like
    Holdit reacted to verdugo94 in is this the hedgrow bug v4????   
    I agree 100% I made the decision after CM SF2 about not buying a single Battlefront product untill they show some care about the reported issues and fix them or at least show some intention with a patch,. They seem to have time to post daily on Off Topic forum it seems they don´t to make a single post on here or the reported tank accuracy bug. This atitude leads me to move my money somewhere else and it is sad to say cause I own lot of Battlefront games and modules.
  13. Like
    Holdit reacted to Thewood1 in Battlefront Poll   
    I have worked on a lot of government bids and contracts.  You pray for mission creep post-award.  One thing the US government is good at is handing out paid change orders.  In reality, its how smart contractors make a lot of money.  You bid on the bare minimum requirements, plan on making almost nothing on the original bid, then make all your margin on the change orders.  Been that way for a long time.  All the work is up front getting into the procurement queue and winning your first contract.  And there are good reasons for doing it that way.   The key is having a very good project manager who can be disciplined and force discipline on your customer without pissing them off.
    If anyone is complaining about not making money on a government contract, they are either being short-sighted or doing it wrong.  Also, if the government is asking you to do things you didn't agree to, you better look at the contract and SOW you signed.  That's your fault as much as their's.
  14. Upvote
    Holdit got a reaction from sttp in Battlefront Poll   
    There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.  
  15. Like
    Holdit got a reaction from com-intern in Battlefront Poll   
    There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.  
  16. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to DerKommissar in Battlefront Poll   
    Aaww yis... CM3: Gulda Fap with ray tracing, dynamic operational campaigns, coop, ingame oob editor, and visible aircraft -- bring it ON!
    On a more attainable note, I'd like packs for minor combatants. Ie. A lapland war/continuation pack for the Finns, a siege of Budapest for Hungarians, or Turkey for cm:sf2.
    On a less attainable note, it'd be cool if the CM3 engine would host all the different families. So you can mix and match all the content, that you own. Maybe make version control a bit easier?
    Archie Wavel & the Italians do deserve more spotlight.
  17. Like
    Holdit reacted to RockinHarry in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available   
    like also to remind of the pillbox issues when mortars and artillery can easily penetrate and kill any occupants within single game turn. This holds up some my scenario creations from getting further since 2-3 years now.
  18. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Erwin in How do you advance over open terrain?   
    My suspicion re why WW2 Africa desert theater hasn't had so much demand is that many folks have the idea that deserts are flat, featureless and boring.  Maybe there a a few places in the world that are like that.  But, that is very rare.  Anyone who has been in deserts knows that desert terrain is a) beautiful, b) often with rugged and dramatic vistas, and c) marvelous for long LOS and maneuver warfare.  We need to regularly chant for BF to consider an Afrika Korps module for CMFI.  (Especially if they ever get to the earlier WW2 period.)

    There is a reason that the US trains on the Utah-Arizona border -  looks a lot like Afghanistan
  19. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Peter Panzer in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available   
    @JoMc67 - interesting, I've never heard of that line.  Advanced Squad Leader is as far back as I go - the notion of tiny cardboard StuG III's still brings joy to my soul.  As I see it, ASL lives on as Combat Mission - how fortunate we are!
  20. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to SlowMotion in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    I would like to make scenarios more playable when playing against the AI and in H2H mode.
    I think these changes would be a big step forward:
    - allow scenario designer to define that some units are included only when this side is played by the AI.
    - same thing for reinforcements
     
    So one could design a scenario that is balanced when playing in H2H mode. Then add some extra units in Scenario Editor and possibly reinforcements that appear during the game ONLY when the AI is using those units. -> the scenario would be more playable also when playing against the AI.
  21. Like
    Holdit got a reaction from SlowMotion in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Copy-able, re-usable, rotatable maps and map segments.
  22. Like
    Holdit got a reaction from Bulletpoint in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Copy-able, re-usable, rotatable maps and map segments.
  23. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Peter Panzer in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available   
    Thanks to everyone for resurrecting this topic, as well as to @Elvis for being present and hopefully bumping it closer to the top of the internal Please Fix or Do Sumfink List.  I know the R2V module took on a developmental life of it's own over the last months!
    CMBN is my favorite title and I too have held off starting any new games due to the counter logical infantry/bocage behavior.
  24. Upvote
    Holdit reacted to Txema in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available   
    I am also very interested in having that important bug solved. Please, BFCElvis, you acknowledged the bug at the beginning of July... CMBN v4 needs a solution for that bug soon!
  25. Like
    Holdit reacted to Badger73 in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available   
    This bug ruins bocage scenario's.  It made @Holdit's beautifully crafted Ad Hoc at Chef-du-Pont unplayable for the Germans
×
×
  • Create New...