Jump to content

RepsolCBR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

RepsolCBR last won the day on May 31

RepsolCBR had the most liked content!

About RepsolCBR

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Kristinehamn, SWEDEN

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I agree with this...no problem there 😉 Maybe with things like modules, packs and simular having a lenthy discussion might not be all that neccesary...I'm pretty sure that BFC knows (researches) more then most of us with regards to the various equipment and TOE/OOBs and stuff as well as historical accuracy for their scenarios and campaigns... But maybe with regards to any eventual CM3 upgrade having an 'open' (on this forum) discussion with the players might be a nice way to go... Maybe something like Paradox are doing with their development diaries....They took quite a bit of flak with one of their latest releases (imperator rome) for not listening enough to the customers...and that game is in serious trouble as i understand it...to few players ! They seems to have learned from their mistake and in their current development diaries both for imperator and EU4 they are sharing their thoughts on future updates as well as asking the comunity for their ideas/suggestions as how to move forward. What it looks like the developers does not have to spend a lot of time participating in the discussion ones the initial annoncement (dev diary) has been made. The forumites are doing most of 'the talking'...Sharing their wiews on the suggested change and comming up with various suggested tweaks and changes. The discussions in those dev diaries are pretty lenthy...and as said...not many posts needed by the develeopers... Something simular sounds like a good idea to me. Atleast with regards to any CM3 development... ex. - DEV.1. We are planning on adding multiplayer co-op in CM3. What do you guys think of this ? How should this be implemented ? What features would you like ? - DEV.2. We're planning to redo the entire AI programing interface for CM3...What would you like to see with regards to this...
  2. Various packs being released sounds nice but the fact that BFC now considders modules to perhaps be to large a projects to be feasable sounds a bit worrying i have to say... How about new basegames ? game engine updates ?... Will we see any more of those going forward ?
  3. Announcing things 'early' also comes with the benefit that hopefully a meaningful discussion between the developer and the customers can take place... Every now and again it happens that we the customers come up with some ideas that the developers have not thought of...good ideas 😎...that can be implemented in the product. Surely it must be a good thing for a developer to get a feel for what the customers want...what do they considder to be important...and what is less so... Such an discussion oght to provide the developers with some valuable feedback... Better to know what the buyers WANT...prior to release...prior to feature complete...as opposed to after...
  4. It would also be preferable imo if...when in the deployment phase (in-game 3d wiew) we could click a button on the UI to open a seperate window showing the 'purchased unit list' from the unit selection screen. This would be kind of an OOB list to help orginazing and deploying the troops. As it is now when we go to deploy our troops they ALL show up bunched together in...a big mess ! 😉 Having larger forces it can take quite some time to get them seperated and orginazed the way you like them. The set-up zone can also be fairly cluttered with all the troops on the screen at ones. What i'm thinking is that the 'purchased units list' ( OOB-list) should have its listed units clickable...Only the units toggled on will be displayed on the screen. This would make finding your desired units far easier when deploying them... Let's say you have bought a battalion. At first you want to deploy your AT-guns and machineguns....Select those units from the list...and only those units will be present on the screen...making it easy to find them and deploy them. Next...lets deploy A company...Select it from the list and it will show up...ready to be deployed 😊...
  5. That's one mighty nice looking billboard 😃
  6. Yepp ! I have been tempted to buy a decent computer many times during these years to be able to play CM and some other less demanding stuff... But now...i think i will stick with my 'plan' 😎... And take the frustration with waiting a while longer...During summer i usually don't play that much anyway...Christmas is not that far away... And it undoubtedly makes waiting for the upcomming modules easier. 😉 A number of intresting things are developing within the CM comunity currently...not least 'the future' for modding 😁... Looking forward to rxperience it soooooon....ish.
  7. I wish i could mess around with this stuff right now. But i'm affraid i can't currently... My old gaming computer gave up...ooh i guess it is almost two yeras ago now. I have been meaning to buy me a new one ever since but RL things has gotten in the way 😢 Primarely some major renovations/add-ons to my house has soked up all my free cash these years. The house is currently sorted though and i have finally been able to start saving some money for my new machine. I will need quite alot though since i'm aming for a top of the line machine that will alowe me to play DCS in high resolution VR...And CM offcourse 😃.. As for timeframe...I'm currently aming for a NICE ! christmas present to myself... It's been a long wait ! i miss playing CM very much and it will be nice to get back into it in a not to distant future...
  8. Would it be possible to mod WALLS to be invisible also ? I have not tried to use the invisible vehicle yet but i would imagine that it get somewhat tricky to deploy troops 'close' to the flavoured object (barrier...or whatever) if there is a vehicle placed beside it...It will be sort of a gap beteween the troops and the object...will it not ? Using walls takes up less space (i belive) and will therefore make it possible to place the troops closer to the flavoured objects one would think...😊 Also...having the option to use high- or low walls could be usefull thing to simulate different hights of the flavoured objects... If it works at all to make walls invisible that is...Just a thought.
  9. Completally agree with this... 'Painting' the map (placing terrain) is not very difficult...Adding flavoured objects is not very difficult...I can make a really good - looking - map whitout to much trouble... The difficulty is....The elevation ! Getting this to look good and provide nice oppertunities and challanges are more tricky imo. Therefore I get very much impressed when looking at 'the pros' maps...people like SeinfeldRules and GerogeMC manages to get this down very well. George MC with his large/huge maps and SeinfeldRules even gets the elevations to provide those challanges/oppertunities on his faily small maps...perhaps an even greater feat. 😊 This thread has some really nice tips and suggestions in it to considder when designing maps...I hope the thread will continue for quite some time yet...A good read indeed... Many thanks to those who contribute with good ideas/suggestions !
  10. Units in buildings will recieve some kind of bonus i'm sure...But like in your example...Does the gameengine take into account that there is a building between the explotion and the troops... or does only the ground-tile under the troops count when it comes to calculating what type of protection they will recieve from an explotion some distance away ? Do the shrapnell actually hit the building inbetween and lose some 'value'...?
  11. Things like that is frustrating...no doubt 😉 And can not be explained by correct fragmentation implementations i guess. Maybe the question should be...How high an impact should random, dice rolls have ? could it be tweaked somewhat ? I wounder...does buildings block fragmentation at all ? is it a simple modifier that could be increased ?
  12. Do you really think so... IIRC one of the 'selling points' of CM is the realistic simulation of LOS/LOF, armour, penetration ability, trajectory etc, etc Giving to much weight to dice rolls in casualty calculations seems kind of contrary to this imo. In RockinHarrys pictures i can kind of buy that the HQ guy took a frag-hit...He seems to be standing, close to a window even, given a fragmentation range of something like 20 meters for a 2 inch mortar does not seem all that impossible i guess. The HMG guys lying prone in a 'heavy' building though...should not take any casualties imo...
  13. It's a pity they did not keep the light and heavy buildings from CM1. Those mayed it somewhat easier to predict the level of protection granted to the troops occupying them IIRC. Random can be a nice thing...but TO MUCH random may not be. 😎
×
×
  • Create New...