Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Content Count

    7,934
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    11

womble last won the day on September 30 2015

womble had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About womble

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/06/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    Leicester, UK
  • Occupation
    IS Manager

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was hoping to touch base with you about a project, but I see you're absent.

    Be safe.

  2. Hi womble,

    I notice that you haven't shown up on the BFC board for over three months now. I hope all is well and you will begin posting again soon.

    Michael

  3. Because the option already exists and a massive chunk of the arguments as to why development effort should be expended on this feature rather than something more useful are fallacious. As well as the option existing having ramifications beyond what the proposers recognise. Options are more complicated than "wouldn't it be nice if...".
  4. It won't be a "Battle Pack". No new models or TO&E in battlepacks. It doesn't fit as a vehicle pack, either, since the TO&E changes would be significant, even going back into Tunisia. So at the very least it would be a Module, and probably a whole new Family, given the additional "local colour" that would need to be incorporated. I think it's most likely to come out in CMx3, if the architecture choices they make in that putative future product allow for more flexible developments (like having forces separate from terrains).
  5. Aye. In CMx1. People just weren't imagining panzermartin's break being more than 9 years...
  6. And if those were standalone scenarios you could have set the time limit to 4 hours. Most scenarios get playtested. All the ones BFC put in with their modules do. Some people play slow and cautious. Some people play fast-and-loose. For there to be a scoring system, there has to be an end point, where scoring counts. It's that simple. Four hours isn't "a lot" if you've got enough units to keep fighting for that long. HvH, though, you're looking at 8 months to completion, and that's if you both manage to get your turn in every day. And it'd take a lot of reinforcements to keep it going t
  7. Of course it's unrealistic. So are map edges. It's. A. Game. It has to have boundaries. The time limit is the boundary in time, same as the map edges are the boundaries in space. It's only irritating because the rest of the simulation is of such high fidelity. Look at figures games like Flames of War or Bolt Action: they have time limits of six turns. I'll say that again: six turns. But people love to play those games. Doesn't matter how often they were met IRL. This is not RL. That, obviously, depends. When XXX Corps missed their time objective, the Rhine crossing was stymied
  8. I don't disagree. Just putting it there for people desperate to incorporate it now...
  9. There have been some suggestions in previous threads on this topic as to how a scenario designer can change the VPs allocated to a side dependent on the progression of time in the sole case of AI battles from a given side (they involve having an AI order group in some hard-to kill location move about to garner additional VPs from Touch objectives, so wouldn't work if a human was in charge of that side, whether in Single Player or HvH modes). I think it's potentially misleading to think of BFC "using Time Compression" in any active way. While combat tempo is accelerated in a CM setting com
  10. If you consider North Africa relative to FI in the same sense as Kursk will be relative to RT (which I get the feeling is how BFC would see it), you're right, nothing's going to show up soon. But then Kursk isn't going to be anytime soon, given that there's the RT and FB modules-to-end-of-war, and the BS module(s) already in the "To Do" list ahead of it, and Kursk is, I get the impression, going to be ahead of any putative NA family. But maybe by then CMx3 will have been brought to reality and the whole paradigm of product development will have shifted...
  11. Must also have detailed, accurate and complete knowledge of all game systems to accurately extract the basic concepts. Most game manuals have errors in them related to the lag between manual writing/production and the last-minute pre-release development rush. And the lack of budget allocated to ongoing documentation maintenance means they don't change, even when there's no hardcopy production element to them.
  12. .50cal SLAP can penetrate a medium tank's side armour, but that's 50 years out of period. No, even the proper HMGs weren't able to penetrate. I've tried opening up on a Panther's rear with 20mm cannon (Crusader AA) and that did nothing that I could tell, except get the tank's attention, terminally for the Crusader.
  13. I've had troopers (in good morale and suppression state) use Fausts as a first resort in room-to-room combat. Routed both assaulters and defenders... I wonder whether Faust guys don't get given any grenades and so fall back on their "only HE" when they might be expected to throw a potato masher.
  14. And Steve has commented today on the BN and BS boards regarding progress on those titles and the first announcement I've seen of engine v4 upgrade for all titles.
  15. Vehicle packs for the early war would require a metric buttload of new models. So they'd be a lot more incremental work, in that regard, than a module stepping back a year. Getting things historically correct is a big motivator for BFC's personnel, I sense. Since that would require things like TO&E changes, I'd imagine they're reluctant to do that until the "scheduled" sequence of game progression comes and they can do the whole thing "proper, like". The BN vehicle pack just added things from the same period as the existing TO&Es and added just the very few elements that the vehic
×
×
  • Create New...