Jump to content

76mm

Members
  • Content Count

    1,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 76mm

  1. hmm, ok; not perfect but definitely better than nothing.
  2. Not sure that I understand correctly, but it doesn't seem like a "copy move" command would work, because the various vehicles would encounter curves in the road, etc., at different points in their move and so would drive off the road? Or am I missing something?
  3. I played GTOS many years ago, and for reasons I don't recall didn't care much for it. I haven't tried GTOS...sounds interesting, but I understand that it doesn't have a map editor, which would be a deal breaker for me--is that correct?
  4. Of course not; all reasonable efforts should be made to ensure accurate OOBs/TO&E, but everyone should recognize the limits of historicity.
  5. As a follow-up to the TO&E discussion, tonight I started reading what looks to be an interesting book about German production and manning levels on the Eastern Front (Enduring the Whirlwind https://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Whirlwind-Russo-German-1941-1943-Wolverhampton-ebook/dp/B073WF9S9W/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PHB33HR9452B&keywords=enduring+the+whirlwind&qid=1570496974&sprefix=enduring+the+wh%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1) The question the book seeks to answer is: ""Did the German war effort in the East fail due to the numerical inferiority of German forces and an inability to replace losses?" In his introduction, the author says that the Germans made some 3,000 changes to their TO&E during the course of the war, but were never able to carry all of these changes out in a uniform manner throughout the army, with the result that no two German divisions actually had the exact same TO&E, even if they were of the same type of division. It sounds like coming with with 100% accurate standard TO&E for German units at any given moment would be challenging indeed, if not impossible...
  6. As IanL says, no date estimate, but I've be surprised if it came out before mid 2020, and later is certainly possible. Note that the various quotes in this thread that "'We're very sure it will be before the end of this year" are referring to 2018, so that I would not give any weight to that at all.
  7. Agreed. I think that this is also correct to a certain extent, but I would think that a lot of the old topics would continue to be discussed as new players join the forum who had not participated in the many past discussions. But that does not seem to be happening; seems like either new members are reviewing old forum content without further discussion (which frankly doesn't seem especially likely) or the topics simply aren't being discussed.
  8. I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever). MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him. Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time. Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time... And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...
  9. Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"? Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not. For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II? Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials? Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time? Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right? I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"? As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff. You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason? Has anyone actually suggested that? You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right? And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end. Command Ops has an interesting system IMO. They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine. Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now? Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.
  10. Well, what I own and what are on my hard drive currently are two very different questions, but currently: TOAW IV, several Panzer Campaigns games, several Battlefront games (including CMBB), CMANO, COTD, CSME, Desert War, Empires in Arms, FOG2, SoW Waterloo, SoW Gettysburg, SP, and ASL (via VASL). I own a couple dozen more games but haven't played them in years. Regarding my comments about not many units and formations, little to edit: First, I think that the current unit offerings in the base games are tolerable, but not generous. I'd be happy to pay for more units via modules but modules are very slow in coming. MikeyD has said that researching/creating the various OOBs and TO&Es in R2V almost "broke" the relevant people, and that might lead BF to further narrowing unit counts/formations in future offerings. That is why I suggest that rather than limiting unit counts even further, they could make their lives easier by not including little used formations such as anti-tank battalions, etc. and just provide their component parts (AT batteries, etc.). Finally, I have played around with the editor pretty extensively over the years; I've been waiting for the first CMRT module to really get into it, but still waiting for that.
  11. Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements. But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do... But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products. Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon! Well, yes... Not sure about that any more. While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead. While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last. And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...
  12. That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.
  13. Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses. I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone. Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units? I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy. Three separate games covering the Western Front: CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh. I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos. For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit. You leave a question yourself: why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here? I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see). Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss? Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
  14. This is more or less my position as well, although I would add that I'd like full-year weather sooner rather than later as well, and that I'm happy paying for modules with additional content rather than a patch, as long as they are provided in something like a timely fashion. As a similar matter, while CMRT features lots of units that I'd never consider using in a scenario, it does not include such items as assault rafts. The Soviets conducted many, many river crossings during Bagration and its aftermath, so their presence is missed. Yes, I understand that rafts would require oodles of new models/animations, so there is a business case against their inclusion, but I miss them nonetheless.
  15. Yes, agreed, although I can't imagine it would be very easy to find accuracy data for every obscure WWII-era sidearm, or weapon in general.
  16. OK, but it sounds like modelling new weapons is not the only difficulty; rather figuring out exactly which weapon was used by whom, and when, is what takes up a lot of time.
  17. You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces? Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that? But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich. Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous. For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.
  18. While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making? Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research). Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them? For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions? Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines? Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor? If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products. I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart. With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.
  19. But of course I've never said that BF should do anything other than what they want, or should choose to focus their business model on satisfying my particular preferences. What I have said is that when game developers fail to provide content that particular users want for several years, those users lose interest in the product (at least I have). In my view, not providing an initial module for a base game for several years after its release--and even then with most content recycled from earlier games--is a clear indication of BF's priorities. That's fine, and I understand the business logic, but when their priorities diverge so significantly from mine, it is time to for me to move on (or I should say "move back", given that I plan to spend more time with ancient games such as ASL, SP, and CMBB). While I expect that the module for CMRT will be released in the next year or two (making it 6 or 7 years after release of CMRT), at this point I don't expect to ever see games covering the Eastern Front in earlier periods, which IMHO are more the interesting periods. The war on the Western front is more or less fully covered by this point (other than the last few months and North Africa), so to provide similar coverage for the Eastern front BF would have to release three East Front games in a row ('43, '43, '41), which is not going to happen.
  20. This is exactly right, they were truly "pulling their weight", and more.
  21. No, but they could be accused of biting off more than they could chew. The long wait for the infantry patch is one example, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, a gap of six years between the release of a base game and the first module for it is...well...very lame.
  22. More or less; the resolution with the GoG version is better than what I could get without it, and acceptable, but I still can't get full-width 1920x1080 without at least slight stretching. The stretching is especially noticeable and I will have to see if I prefer playing with no stretching and a narrower window or slight stretching and full-width.
  23. Of course I can understand why people like CMx2, but I certainly wouldn't call it "full spectrum". Looking at my favorite theater, the Eastern front, it is ridiculously "narrow spectrum"--a few months with a subset of units on a limited part of the front. I would call CMx2 Hi-Fidelity, Narrow Spectrum. SP, ASL, and yes, CMBB are far more full-spectrum than CMx2 and that's why I'm going back to them; well, that and the fact that I just find them more fun. All of these games are what I would call Medium Fidelity, Very High Spectrum. And I'm fine with that...
  24. I need to mess around with the other settings a bit...with aspect correction disabled, it is full screen but looks a bit stretched out.
  25. It is "full-screen", but still probably 25% of the screen on the left and right is black. But much better than it was. Is yours true full screen? In the dx utility, I've set the display mode to "same as desktop" (which is 1920x1080). There are a bunch of other settings that I don't understand, so I haven't messed with them... The GoG version is totally legit and was announced here by BF.
×
×
  • Create New...