Jump to content

Cid250

Members
  • Content Count

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cid250

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/13/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://i13.tinypic.com/6hcn3gw.jpg

Converted

  • Location
    Granada, Spain
  • Interests
    WWII tactics
  • Occupation
    Teacher in Computer Engineering

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Any news of development roadmap for the next year 2018? It's the development of new modules frozen? Thanks
  2. Just wondering... This front is so important... that i miss the diversity of the old CMBB.
  3. I agree... would be great to combine all in just one single file. It's not that big for the current storage standards, nor for the network to download it, even from an online repository.
  4. The title says it all?. Those two are for sure very complex features. So the question is for long term... and aimed to the playerbase opinion. To be able to save all the game replays and share it in a whole battle replay allowing to move the camera into the full battle, was a good feature that maybe had no sense in the past due to the constrains on file size and network bandwith of the past years... but for the standars of 2017 and comming years that's not true anymore. There is no problem with very big file storage nor with network bandwidth availability world wide. Also, more than 2 players in a single multiplayer battle, it's a very appealing feature (from my point of view), with much less computer computation power and network bandwidth constraints as the time goes forward... 2 vs 2 or even 4 vs 4 battles with WeGo reporting to central server storage (for single master client side computation), or any kind of central game turn battle repository (with server side merge and computation of the turn), it's feasible technologically and the cost of it goes down each year. The question is... Are those two features, a big player magnet?. Or... it's not popular enought to invest any time in their development?. How many of you, will really play the game more, if those features were available on this game in the long term?. It's a niche withing a niche?. Or a bigger and strongest multiplayer enrichment, will encourage some fresh air, thus increasing the vitality of online matches?. I think specifically on the "SPARE" player feature, if on a 4 vs 4 player running game, a player or two leaves... any other player of their side can take control of those troops, being less dramatical than in the 1 vs 1 player match when one player leaves.
  5. Oh No!. DVD-R is also the format for Market Garden?. It's sad... i've just preordered it. The only reason to buy a DVD, is the long life storage backup, in order to avoid long download times or as a backup for Hard Disk removals. If it's just a DVD-R, then it doesn't have any sense to buy it.
  6. In the preorder says: Well... i have the base game, and all the modules, including the ones in fortress Italy. This mean that i still don't have the 2.0 engine update?. I thought that was included in another previous module, i'm wrong?. It's not clear for me if the 2.0 is mandatory in order to install Market Garden.
  7. Do the germans a correct use of the LMG within the new module release?.
  8. That's true... i've even pictures of the german manuals explaining those indirect fire procedures. They even had special clinometers and optics to do the job... specially at ranges of 3.000 meters, when they align 4 Tripod MGs to beat the same area with all of them... At those ranges the bullets rain from the sky at step angles, and you can be hit even behind an horizontal cover. Those indirect fires were done as measure for reverse slope defenses... and the clinometer was used to pass the fire over the hill to the other side where the enemy defense is suspected, as supression method. One of those practices of MG indirect fire was part of one chapter of the TV series Brother in Arms (don't remember what exactly).
  9. LMG - MG42... that weapon was designed to pawn in any firefight at ranges over 500m, but at 230m you are caught in close fire where several semi-autos are an advantage over a fast firing death machine like an MG42 in his bipod configuration. You need to repeat the test at ranges over 600m, and in normal circumstances, the german squad should win if the weapons and tactis are well modeled in-game.
  10. Another old CM feature that i miss too much... those old lines from HQ to their units (red or black), gives a much better visual feedback of you chain of command. Will be nice to have those lines back eventually... at least as an optional feature, like drawing trees or not. If a true LOS tool is included, much better. Happy new year 2012!. Is not the end of the world.
  11. Based on how many things you need today to add content... CMBN will need an obscene amount of years to get only a 20% of the content available in CMx1 engines. May be it's true that the code for the new CMx2 Engine is more organiced and hepls to speed coding of features... but there are so many areas that grow in man-hours of work, that the final result is a much slower develompent pace if we count the number of features. For example, will be impossible to wait for a Finnish, Romanian, or Italian army... or even for complete set of URSS, Germany, and USA for a time period from 1941 to 1945. The only solution to this situation, in order to complete a minimum of the content available on CMBB & CMAK, would be to add a huge amount of extra work force. Is there any plan to outsource the expansion of content with a greater number of companies?
  12. Real Time will need for sure a more complex solution... since the bandwith of 8 players will be a must for the server simultaneously to avoid LAG. A PBEM implementation avoids LAG... and they can release a second version of the server as soon as they test it and remove LAG issues. In the other side, is very difficult for 8 players to be available the same day at the same hour for a battle... PBEM doesn't need to have all the 8 players online at the same time... PBEM it's way more flexible than RT.
  13. I can't find the official reply of Battlefront about the chances of developing a real multiplayer option within the CMx2 Engine lifecycle. Will we need to wait for a CMx3 engine to include that feature?. I know that this kind of fetaure is a lot of work... and the problem is how "money" returns... So... if some day that product is available, it must be sold as a separate product: Combat Mission Multiplayer Server. Combat Mission Multiplayer Server needs to be developed as a client-server model. For PBEM WeGO for example, the "outgoing mail" folder sends the move of each player to the server like "DropBox". Then the server mix all the players moves and returns a single file to the "incoming email" folder of each player. Real time doesn't need to be implemented, because it's difficult to find the time for 8 players at the same time the same day, for simultaneous play. PBEM WeGo is more flexible... because 8 players can send their moves at diferent times and it isn't a problem between players of diferent time zones. Let's say that this server price is 150$, how many players do you think that will be interested in pay for that feature?.
×
×
  • Create New...