Jump to content

James McKenzie-Smith

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James McKenzie-Smith

  • Birthday 12/12/1968

Converted

  • Location
    Vancouver, B.C., Canada

James McKenzie-Smith's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. My biggest 'Holy ****' moment was when I first opened the Battlefront.com edition's box. The manual stank so badly that I withdrew violently, suspecting that I was under chemical attack. I have since aired it out a bit, and it smells rather less strong.
  2. First, I am really enjoying the game. Patch 1.08 was excellent, and to anyone who has not altered the default key commands to suit your own preferences, I can recommend it as a way to radically improve one's enjoyment of the game. Now, the question. I recall seeing previews for the game some time before publication where it was mentioned that not only could the AI have five battle plans, but also five orbats as well, for twenty-five possible variations on a scenario. In-game, I only see that the mission designer can only create one available orbat for either side. Am I missing something? If this feature was dropped, any chance of seeing it in the future? And now for some suggestions. First, could we have the icon on-off toggle to be three way, so that a third toggle option allows for toggling the "?" icons off? As it stands, they remain when icons are toggled off. Also, could we have a toggle to hide building interiors? Both of these options would help for good screenshots. On the post-battle review map screen, could we have the 'ESC to escape map' overlay in a smaller font, on the top of the viewable area? This is partially for the benefit of screen shots once again, and partially to make it easier to see the battlefield for post-battle viewing. I also have a few more complex requests for the mission editor. First, could we have triggers? By this, I mean areas on the map when entered can trigger a linked AI movement or response. Alternatively, they could be triggered by certain other actions such as loss levels etc etc. Such a system is used in Steel Beasts to good effect, also in OFP. If this is implemented, then a branching waypoint option for the AI would be welcome. With such systems implemented (along with the five existing AI battleplans and possibly five orbats), a scenario could potentially play very differently over dozens of different playings. Finally, a request for a certain unit to be included in a later addon. While I agree with those who point out that units such as Special Forces and SEALs are pretty much out of the scope of the game and not really suitably simulated therein, I would argue that the 75th Ranger regiment is a good fit, given some of their roles. Therefore, my final request is a Ranger battalion sometime in the future. Thanks for making CMSF a good game! I am really enjoing it.
  3. Thanks for the answer. I'll let you know if the game becomes unplayably slow with my system after the patch is released (assuming that I'm using the same machine at that point).
  4. Right, I've read about the new enhanced LOS system, and it sounds singularly fabulous. However, for the time being, I have a PC with a Celeron D 2.36GHz. Is performance going to drop too much with this processor? I noted that the new system is being implemented partially due to the assumption that most of us have dual core systems.
  5. You did not read any of the rest of this thread. I was referring to the actual odour of the Battlefront edition's printed manual. I actually quite enjoy the game, but the manual's bouquet is rather overpowering.
  6. I opened the game box for the first time since last August a few days ago, and I was nearly overcome by the fumes. Does anyone have any tips as to how to make the manual a little less smelly? Do I have to air it out or something?
  7. Hello, thewood. Squads finding cover has little to do with WEGO. It has everything to do with 1:1 representation vs. abstraction, which is a different issue altogether. AATF also does not have the problems that CMSF has, for the reason you mentioned. Once again, nothing to do with RT/WEGO. I'm not too arsed about limited OOBs, although I am sympathetic to those who would like more variety. I also would not actually dislike having more units to play with. As you point out, there are significant differences between CMSF and the other games I listed. However, for me, they attempt to scratch pretty much the same itch. You are right that RT works better with smaller units. Not really an issue with me, though; I have never been big on brigade or even mere battalion command. Platoon, reinforced platoon, or maybe a company on an ambitious day is about it for me. That held true even for tactical board wargames, years and years ago.
  8. You are partially correct in your assumption. I would probably expand my definition of 'competing product' to include 'RT wargames', with an emphasis on modern tactical warfare, but not exclusively. Examples would include Eric Young's Squad Assault, Close Combat Modern Tactics and Road to Baghdad and the rest of the Close Combat series, Air Assault Task Force and Armored Task Force, and Steel Beasts (while strictly speaking a tank simulator, the tactical wargaming aspect of the latter can be rewarding). There are other games, dealing with similar topics in RT, such as JTF, Act of War, and Will of Steel, but these are barely wargames at all. There is also the Chain of Command mod of OFP and ArmA, but as it is a mod, I will not call it a competing product; Full Spectrum Command would be a competing product if ever it had a public release. From this RT wargamer's point of view, CMSF compares very favourably with most of the above, although the Close Combat series and EYSA are both easier to navigate and use.
  9. H.W. Guderian, you have give good reasons for liking WEGO, and I am glad for you that there are games that allow you to enjoy wargaming in a manner that suits you. I am in fact one of those (rare?) gamers who plays one style of CMSF, but at least understands the other. Both types of play suit different types of gamers. RT possibly appeals to people who like the time pressure and dealing with the fog of war on a moment by moment basis. WEGO is especially good for the analysts and historians. There are also many similarities, and many other reasons to like either way of play. As an RT gamer, it would be silly for me to look down on WEGO players, any more than I can look down on people who prefer Natalie Portman to Keira Knightley. It's just a matter of taste, and frankly, it's of little concern to me. As for WEGO being an afterthought...no, I don't think so. The implementation of WEGO did not make everyone happy, to be sure, but when the game was announced, there was no mention of RT. The eventual inclusion of RT might have necessitated the changing of WEGO, but it seems to me that WEGO play is in fact possible. It is just not the same WEGO play that was presented by CM1. Those who thought that CM1's WEGO was perfect - and there were more than a few such people - might naturally look on any changes as being retrograde steps. Maybe they are right, I do not know. I can say that the RT experience in CM2 is rather better than in most competing products.
  10. H.W. Guderian, in answer to your question, "Can someone who waited weeks next to the mailbox for their miniature Tiger tanks to show up ever really be satisfied without WEGO?" I can say that the answer is yes, this gamer can live with RT. I was a board and miniatures wargamer, and I also designed wargames, and wrote miniatures rules. Part of my struggle as a wargame designer was to make turn sequences that simulated reality as much as possible. Variations on IGOUGO were all that were possible, apart from double blind systems that were superficially similar to WEGO. Practical WEGO was really only possible with computers; however, from my point of view as a wargmaer, it was only a step on the path to real time. Does this mean that I think that CMSF RT is the final step in game design? Well, no. However, it more or less suits my own wargaming philosophies and tastes.
  11. I paid the full online price for CMSF, and I am happy with it. I paid nothing to come to this forum, and on the whole, I'd have to say that it has been worth every penny.
  12. I'd buy a Marine module just for the new units. I'd also buy the Brits and a NATO one for the same reason. How about a hypothetical Singapore vs. Malaysian module for Leopard 2A4 vs. T-80 action? How's that for an obscure request?
  13. I play CMSF, but I do not own the earlier CM titles. I tried the demos for all three, but I did not enjoy them at all, despite my interest in their respective subject matters. However, I was prepared to give CMSF a go, even if it was only WEGO, as I am interested in the SBCT concept. However, I am pleased that CMSF includes RT gameplay, as I really did not enjoy WEGO.
  14. Judging by your finding the mosque's rude name, I seem to have uploaded an earlier version of the scenario. Unfortunately, my error also means that you had the wrong scoring scheme in place. Apologies on both counts. Thanks for the input re. the ease of the scenario. Did you use WEGO or RT? Was the scenario too long, too short, or Goldilocks? It should be noted that I tend to opt for longer than necessary scenarios, as the user can always ceasefire after the fat lady sings. New file posted above. I've included the one with the correct mosque name and correct points scheme; I have also added three antiarmour systems to the Red side. I have not removed the MGS systems at this time...I like to try out one improvement at a time, and the Red AT weapons are it. No other improvements as of yet.
  15. Here is an urban map. Feel free to use it, expand it, alter it, shrink it, or set up a scenario on it and blow it to bits. I do not give a damn if you give me credit for the map, either. Download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?6dpcy3ojvd0
×
×
  • Create New...