Jump to content

Caesar

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caesar

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    NZ
  • Occupation
    Programmer
  1. This bugs me too. My HMG targetted a sherman uselessly (well, as far as I know it was useless) while nice soft men ran right by it. Now the stupid git is about to be killed by the same guys he ignored. The sherman was much further away than the infantry.
  2. I'm happy enough with the floating icons, but is there a way of making them float a lot lower. Is there a setting somewhere? They are so high above the units that you often have to really look hard to find which unit they are referring to.
  3. Tried it on two different machines, immediate crash on one of them (didn't even get to start) and CTD as soon as I pushed the go button on the next one. Gave up after that. Guess I can see why they gave up on it.
  4. I assume it will work with the 64 bit version as well
  5. Moon, why are you so opposed to a subscription model. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee but a 6 monthly fee that gave me any new modules plus the scenario/mod downloads would be something that I would go for. I am not suggesting that I get the Titles with such a fee, just the modules and mods etc. Is it not possible to pay for the service with advertising, or is the revenue generated insufficient to cover costs. I have always assumed that this was the way that the free sites manage it.
  6. Could the HE be hitting the leaders more because the HE is aimed at the centre of the target and that is where the leader typically is. I guess the same could be said for small arms fire, that it would be typically be aimed at the highest density of troops. When troops are on the move the leader moves first and is in the front and is therefore more likely to be hit. I guess if this is the cause (assuming the problem exists of course) then the AI could conceivably be altered to get the leader to hold back some and not located at the centre so much.
  7. In version 1.07 I've just fired about 6 - 8 Javelins at some medium bunkers with no success so I guess not. The Strykers with the 105 were not alot better. On the odd occasion that they managed to hit them, they had little effect. My tanks however, did an excellent job. It surprised me that the Strykers were not more effective, I thought that was one of their primary functions. They seemed to be crewed by the extremely near sighted. They missed about 75% of the time and achieved little when they did hit. The tanks rarely missed and killed them 90% of the time
  8. This discussion reminds me of Linux Vs Windows debates. Linux experts claim it is faster and easier to do everything because they have memorised a whole lot of obscure commands and know and understand the system. Windows users say windows is easier because everything is intuitive from the start. The problem is, both sides of the argument are correct. However, which one dominates the world? I can work this control system but like most of the reviewers I don't find it intuitive. I have tried really hard to like it and when I have played a number of games over a short period of time I have even become pretty proficient with it. However when I take a few weeks break the next time I play it is not pretty. Anyone watching would be convinced I was drunk. Looking at the reviews, the number of people whinging and going from my own experience this current interface is hurting you. It is putting people off the game and making the initial learning curve too great. I suspect that you are losing sales from people trying the demo and giving up before getting into the game and exploring its depths. Had I not played the CM1 series I am not certain I would have put the effort in. Part of my job is writing user interfaces. I agree 100% that there is no such thing as a perfect interface and I know from experience that every time we make a change (often much requested ones) we will get whinging about how the old way was better or we should have done it another way. However there are non-intuitive and unfriendly interfaces and IMO this is one of them. It does work and it can work well (as long as you are thorougly familiar with it). That does not make it intuitive and friendly. One of the things we have discovered is that we need to test our systems with people who are unfamiliar and watch where they stumble and struggle. Ironically enough, the people who are most familiar with our system are the worst judges of the interface.
  9. Sirocco, you try predicting how long software will take to develop sometime. Nobody gets it right. Microsoft with more resources than virtually any other company in the world can't get it right, nor can IBM. Take a look at all the big name game developers. How many of them are released on time - not many. Developers typically make an estimate based on experience and then add a percentage. It is easy enough to do it with smallish projects with fixed parameters but when you are faced with a more sizable project, limited resources and constant changes of the platform you are working on you are likely to get problems. The publisher and the developer need to work together closely with the publisher getting feedback on progress and mounting their campaign based on actual progress rather than initial estimates. This doesn't appear to happen. It seems that a time gets contracted in and that time is fixed in stone. This is the second beta game I have bought where paradox has been involved. In both cases the developers are small, niche and with a very good past record for support. I suspect that unless you are a large developer they simply dictate terms and you sink or swim. I was concerned when I heard that paradox was involved, unfortunately my concerns were well founded. Hopefully BFC will be able to patch this game into a more reasonable finished state soon enough that their credibility is not permanently damaged. IMO 1.04 is playable enough but is in reality still a late beta product. I don't think it is fatally flawed like some suggest.
  10. Originally posed by Redwolf I think that is a bit harsh. In my experience, there were considerable improvements between 1.02 & 1.03. Admittedly there is still a way to go, but it went from being virtually unplayable to being really irritating at times. If they don't fix them, they can guarantee no more sales of modules and reduced sales of their next WW2 game. That is commercial reality You are making some assumptions here that may not be based in reality. The next modules (as I understand it) are going to be much the same code base, with maybe a few minor features and a bunch of different units for each side. One of the reasons Steve touted as being cause for the rewrite was the ability to add models etc without Charles having to be as involved. If that aim has been achieved, a module may not consume all that much of Charle's time so he can keep patching. Let's face it, the fixes are going to be needed for any future game or module so he might as well do it now. Based on past performance by BFC and the commercial reality that they need to restore some faith in their customers, I suspect that we will be getting a few more patches yet and most of them are likely to contain minor feature improvements.
  11. Well that sux! Now the AI is beating me :mad: Just tried a battle and got my butt handed to me. What's with the Syrians shooting back now, that's not on. In all seriousness, this is a massive improvement. It looks much better, (well until my guys start getting blown up all over the place) though I have taken a hit on the framerates, particularly when I zoom right out. Mine is only a moderate system and I have everything set on max so I would expect that. It is much easier to see undulations in the terrain. The path finding seems very good now (though I haven't tried it in a built up scenario yet). One thing that needs toning down a bit is when you take the Strykers on rough terrain they bounce all over the place. Yes I was telling them to go fast, but IMO they should go as fast as possible given the constraints of the terrain. What they were doing was a bit over the top. If that speed on that terrain causes that much bouncing around, then they should not be able to go that fast. The improvements in the enemy AI is now making the game a challenge. I played the same scenario the other night and got a total victory. Half my losses were caused by path finding madness. Tonight I got hammered and the losses were caused by the idiot in command, not idiot AI. Charging M1s around with reckless abandon is a good way of getting them killed it seems. The release notes say they have toned the armour down sightly... not sure it was all that slightly. Show all paths is back! Thank goodness for that. Well done BFC.
  12. Interesting thread. In this debate, there are occasional suggestions that MBTs are obsolete. These are quickly shot down by the heavy armour proponents. However, MBTs (that I have played with in the game) are only coming up against obsolete RPGs. Their armour shrugs off most hits (so long as you or the AI does not do something stupid like present the side or rear armour). But what is going to happen when your opponents get Javelins or the Russian/Chinese/whoever's equivalent. How well are they going to survive then. With the MGS providing direct fire support, Javelins providing AT support and the MBTs vulnerable, are they becoming obsolete - not just yetm but over the next few years? I must try some Blue on Blue games and see how this all pans out.
  13. I've played all three of their previous products. I've also bought Paradox products before. I just assumed this was the case. Paradox seem to be incapable of delivering me a product that is finished. Does every developer that works for them suffer the same problems? I remember buying HOI from them; CMSF is a thing of joy by comparison. I think there are about half a dozen game breakers at the moment and not all of those are affecting all players. I figure by about 1.04 the main problems will be gone and the game will be pretty good. By about 1.07 or 8 most of these threads will be bad dreams. Obviously not everything is going to be fixed as some of these things are gone by design. QBs for example will never be what they were in CM1, but I suspect they will be good enough to satisfy most. I still want to be able to buy my own units but I cant see how that will be fixed. A plethora of new maps, being able to select them at will etc will keep most happy. Maybe they can work out a more directly selectable mechanism. WEGO I suspect, will be okay (changed yes, but at least okay) once the AI is sorted and maybe a few command stacking options are added in. My only real fear is that all the negative reviews coupled with their attending negative word of mouth will hammer the company.
  14. Add my vote for this too please. Some of the scenarios being posted are too good to languish several pages down
  15. Yeah they should have had a few of the latest ATI rigs being tested. Problem is, there are plenty of people reporting no problems too. Even just with the latest graphics cards, you then have to test it on all the combinations of OS and CPU combinations (dual core, hyperthreading, single core etc). The number of potential combinations with just one of the latest cards already gets hard to test completely.
×
×
  • Create New...