Jump to content

Wiggum15

Members
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Wiggum15

  1. sburke you sucessfully derailed this thread which was about CMx2's infantry problems.
  2. Just checked my normandy pictures, they look the same. Then they should provide multiple files that the player can swap according to the environment he plays in.
  3. Its a function of the forum i can change my name as often i want...maybe next time if will be sburke15.
  4. Stop posting these pictures sburke, thats just spam.
  5. So differend unit artwork in the UI should be no problem...lets see if BFC has done it.
  6. Will you Vote for Trump ?

    I would if i would life in the USA.

  7. Yeah, you dont care about GTOS, but i care about CM !
  8. NV ? Because it gives Night combat a realistic feel and adds to the immersion ? Yeah, plotting multiple movement points on a road and then your vehicle still drives in a stupid way around into a field... Looks like sburke just cant handle the fact that a game like GTOS exists and is available on Steam for 4$....how sad.
  9. GTOS is not less capable, it has a other focus (NO MICRO MANAGEMENT) why cant you understand that ? Where is your NV view in CMx2 ? Wehre are your SOP's and formations ? Where is your "use road" command for vehicles ? Stop telling lies !
  10. GTOS has formations, SOP's...GTOS is not about micro-managing infantry like CMx2 ! Try do that in CMx2... intentionally... I choose a formation (Line) and stealth behavior and let them move towards the enemy using a depression in the terrain. Oh, did you notice the NV feature ? Wouldn't that be nice to have in CMBS ?
  11. GTOS has advanced infantry options CMx2 can only dream about + does not focus on micro managing your infantry, stop spreading lies. Also i am also demanding a better modelling of infantry combat in the GTOS forums. Sorry, double post, hate the new forum system...
  12. @ sburkeGTOS has advanced infantry options CMx2 can only dream about + does not focus on micro managing your infantry, stop spreading lies. Also i am also demanding a better modelling of infantry combat in the GTOS forums.
  13. So you agree with me i see, lets see what Steve says.
  14. I will make a special thread about my issues with the UI soon.
  15. And we should suffer because of that ?
  16. Not as long as you can read my posts for free, wait until i start charging 55$ for it, the quality will go through the roof. And you know for sure they are not just taken from Normandy...WHY exactly ? And they could not design 2 diffrend sets of portraits ? Would that be too much work or distract them from something else ?
  17. Thanks. As suspected the UI is still not full width and the unit pictures are taken from Normandy, that makes me sad.
  18. There are a few things but currently the areas where CMx2 falls short (mostly Infantry and presentation/ UI) keep me away from playing it.
  19. Infantry combat is the biggest issue of the engine currently. An easy fix could be some tweaking in the suppression/spotting/lethality department + the introduction of formations. Sadly BFC is not interested in getting a better infantry simulation at the moment.
  20. Maybe, but most likely not. Lets see what Steve says about that.
  21. Why would it become worse ? Because BFC say "not doing do any new feature before 2017" or "too much work" ?
  22. And you dont think thats lazy and disrespectful towards their customers ?
  23. Likely to get fixed soon ? I posted about that problem 3 years ago and it is still not fixed so forget about "soon". And today we have PC so powerful to play games like ArmA3, why should fire and smoke give us bad framrates in CMx2 ? Because the engine cant handle it ? Then its time for a new one.
  24. They need to fit what exactly ? They are streight out from the Normandy game, sorry thats lazy. And no, BFC is not the "best wargame company",,,why should they be...whats with that constanc praising towards BFC ?
×
×
  • Create New...