Jump to content

Pelican Pal

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pelican Pal last won the day on November 9

Pelican Pal had the most liked content!

About Pelican Pal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

629 profile views
  1. I suspect its almost entirely do to with AI problems. TacAI is only reactive and there is no strategic AI whatsoever so it would certainly cause a ton of problems in any scenario that wasn't a flat plain. Not just for the "AI player" but for the player themselves as 60 second turns would lead to some hilariously bad situation where it would take ~3+ minutes to slightly angle a tank. Personally I would like an exaggerated limit on elevation rather than none. Essentially allow tanks to fudge elevation dramatically, but maybe not fire directly below themselves or nearly vertically into a 5 story building.
  2. Given CM's niche nature I'm always a bit surprised that development of some features needs to be a closed loop. Sure an import/export feature isn't going to get you super far, but it gives people access to the information. From that they can develop their own methods of interacting with it. Much like the PBEM Helper programs that made playing MP much more pleasant. Users can do a lot when a hook is available. With the added advantage that what the user comes up with doesn't need to be commercial quality but can still give significant value-add.
  3. To an extant this is already doable. Unit limitation is only an issue within the Quick-Battle selector. Outside of that there isn't anything stopping you from fighting '43 Italians and French forces against Brazilian troops riding Panther's and Hanomags or even going as far as siming the '47 - '49 Palestine War (if you are okay missing some British tanks). Anything within a Family can be used against anything else within that Family.
  4. I don't think anyone here is saying that paying for Engine Patches is inherently bad. CM: Battle For Normandy is essentially a dead game (no new development) and there is work going into keeping it up to date. Fortress Italy though is (well was) alive. It was an unfinished Family that had active development going over a course of 7 years. Now if someone purchased CM:FI in 2012 and wants to get R2V they are going to pay an additional 45%. As an aside: The store pages for Battle for Normandy handle the requirements section in a better fashion. https://www.battlefront.com/battle-for-normandy/cmbn-commonwealth-forces-module/ At the top it says While R2V https://www.battlefront.com/fortress-italy/cmfi-rome-to-victory-module/ says: and Gustave Line https://www.battlefront.com/fortress-italy/cmfi-gustav-line-module/ Even though Gustav will operate with both Engine 3 and 4.
  5. It just seems weird to have returning users being required to pay anywhere between 30% to 45% more for a game than the sticker price. Not to mention that the requirement is actually posted below the fold on my 1080p monitor under Requirements rather than Product Info. Its a non-standard system, and I'd bet there are people who make the purchase without realizing the requirement. In these cases its required to have the newest engine for the new content. IIRC some of the older modules were backwards compatible. This is likely done to make support and patching more streamlined.
  6. To stay current I get. But, to use Red Thunder as an example, I've no need to stay current. I haven't played a PBEM in yonks and exhausted my interest in the scenario list quite some time ago. I'm essentially a lapsed customer - the last new purchase I made was in 2015. Lapsed customers seem like the people you would want to entice back. Yet lapsed customers would end up paying the most. Someone who purchased CM:FI over half a decade ago and just hears about Rome To Victory is going to get some sticker shock at the $50 price tag. To organize my thoughts better the most active BF customers would seem likely to keep their games updated. They want to engage in MP and with newly created scenario content. While the least active (lapsed as it were) are less likely to do so. Requiring the least active (and by inference) the least committed to jump through additional hoops seems counter-intuitive. Since these folks are probably the most likely to walk away from the game. You are certainly free to send them money in the mail. Personally the engine upgrade requirements are not going to make/break my decision to make new purchases. Much like 76mm, I'm very much an Eastern Front player. But I can't shake the feeling that requiring them is a unusual move when your least committed customers are likely the ones without them.
  7. Re: free upgrades Its becoming significantly more prevalent. Paradox is a prime example, but there are many others. There are series that don't, but with the prevalence of Steam, youtubers, etc... Its increasingly beneficial to sales to have long running updates done to a game. But much of it is driven by systems that BFC doesn't take advantage of so the benefit might not really be there for BFC. Re: CM:FI Is it true that you have to buy-in to the Engine Upgrades to get the new module? I was under the impression that each new purchase would bundle in the newest engine. I'm fine paying for engine upgrades if I'm going to use them, but requiring them for module purchases seems rather strict for early adopters. For example, I played through CM:RT before any of the more recent engine upgrades were released and have had no need for them. Yet if I were to purchase the new module I would need to buy an engine upgrade? Ooof yea. If you were an early CM:FI adopter (7 years ago?) you'd shell out $50 for CM:RTV. Re: QBs QBs would be much improved if maps (well AI plans) were connected with the force purchases. There are a number of good scenario scripts that would still be effective as long as the purchases were within a certain % of the expected force type. Essentially what seems to be one of the big problems with QB design is that the designer can't know what forces are available, but that information is present and could be applied to the map choice.
  8. I've had a few experiences with squads not shifting after given a facing order within a building in the past. With only a handful of men moving to give fire until the enemy begins to return fire. In retrospect it was likely just a one off, but since then I've tended to keep better track of my facing orders and haven't really had a chance to see men do it on their own.
  9. Because CM has gone increasingly 1:1 there would be more situations than you might think. A squad in a building giving a facing order will all look that way. So it would be entirely possible for 9 men to be looking East, know that enemies (I.E. spot them) are coming from the North, but be unable to engage because of the given facing order. You could write this off as a player failure, but any squad leader with half a brain could reorient his men within the same floor of a building. Essentially I think you would quickly run into a huge number of problems because CM's scale is such that what window is being used can change the outcome of a fight. Something like Armored Brigade where the scale is slightly higher (or even CMx1) would be much better fit for having larger time lapses.
  10. Yea, this is one of the recurring problems with TacAI that we have. It has no context for the actions that it takes - creating situations where a lazed vehicle will reverse itself into certain death. High on my CMx3 wishlist is an honest to god SOP system so we can edit orders to fit the context a unit is in. IIRC, a vehicle will ignore a laze warning if you give it a pause command. Although it has a been a while since .I played through CM:BS.
  11. Adding additional turn length only really works if you "game it". Perhaps by writing out intentions that you then carry out until you are able to write a new intention for a given platoon. So you are indeed locked into attacking a village for ~5 minutes before being able to do something else. The player needs to be able to act as platoon or even squad leader, because the TacAI is purely reactionary and has no sense of context or positively taking action. An AT team, for example, could reliably be expected to fire their bazooka and then fallback to a safer location on their own initiative. However, without player input they cannot do this.
  12. Yea you can still post there, but its effectively just one dude left. I used to frequent GS quite a bit circa CM:SF and CM:BN and enjoyed the conversations there quite a bit. A few people who were active there are active here. IIRC thewood and elvis, but most others have dropped off.
  13. I'm still on an old version of CM:BN to avoid this issue so I can' test this myself. But what happens if you delete the bocage - save - and then place the bocage again?
  14. Gamesquad has been effectively dead since ~2015 if not longer.
  • Create New...