Jump to content

Kevin2k

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kevin2k

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. About my last suggestion of CMSF2 Russians; it would put CMSF2 in competition with CMBS, therefor it may not be smart marketing wise. Also I expect it would trigger lots and lots of Cold War Europe modding with Syria temperate retextures, and in that case it would be better for Battlefront to sell a Cold War Europe game, instead of facilitating a modded one.
  2. The game is in a timeframe of three months in 2008. I don't see how they can add some 2017 technology and integrate it smoothly. The quick battle screen would become complicated for one. Maybe it would be more doable to add a Russian 2008-era side, with whatever is already available from CMSF2-Syria and CMBS-Russia/Ukraine? It seems CMBS-Ukraine mirrors Russian gear and vehicles but less modern, more like 2008.
  3. Kevin2k

    Better Load Times

    I just tried the CMSF2 demo on a core i3-2310M laptop with intel graphics. All low settings, but one can actually play a tiny quick battle, and only the text rendering is a little off, the rest looks like it should....Now back to my normal desktop...
  4. Kevin2k

    QB Maps

    I just tried it and the Horizon backdrop is indeed more mountainous with the "Region: Mountains" setting.
  5. Kevin2k

    QB Maps

    The few QB maps I tried were very nice. Reminded me a bit of CM Fortress Italy. But I need to play some more maps to judge it properly... Anyone know what the Quick Battle setting "Region: Syria" versus "Region: Mountains" does? I seem to have the same selections of maps and map-options with both.
  6. Kevin2k

    Better Load Times

    Same here. much appreciated! Either the textures are more modest or the transfer rate has improved. In case of the latter, I hope it can be included in the scheduled patch for the previous v4 games.
  7. Thanks for the tip, I will consider that. So far I just lurk a bIt on Network 54 braille-scale forum and onthewaymodels.com.
  8. Interesting. Are these 1/72 Unimodel kits? I have a couple of Dragon 1/72 shermans in the works, very slow progress though: M4 + M4A1-76W + M4A3-76W + Firefly Ic. For decades there were hardly any decent shermans in this scale, but all is well now.
  9. About the paper panzers / post-war tanks. It would be more balanced to pit the allies Against the Soviets in that case. Just like the light strategy game Panzer Corps, which has a few of those fictional scenarios set in 1945/1946. Though for CM that would be difficult since the Allied and Soviet resources are in different games. The Germans had so many issues in 1945 it is hard to imagine it being anything more then wrapping things up with symbolic (but still deadly) resistance . Or there has to be some fictional backstory that suggests otherwise.
  10. Based on hardly anything, I have a very good feeling about this patch; lets release it into the wild. Is this patch solely for the running away from HE, or maybe some other little things?
  11. These yellow civilian cars? One is seen in the video, and in the pictures there are a few near the Challenger II tank.
  12. Looking forward to this major overhaul of Shock Force. The variation in nations and vehicles in CMSF with British+NATO is really interesting, as it also shows quite a few units used in the final years of the 'cold war' in Europe. And Syria has (had?) quite a complete collection of Soviet cold war weaponry as well. Will be great to play around with those. The CV90 is newer but also very welcome IMO. Some years ago I was doing some work in a factory that made CV90 parts and they also did maintenance of complete vehicles there, using 35 Tonne cranes. Very cool.
  13. Kevin2k

    What is going on?

    Pretty much all the design and marketing decisions of the CM2 games make sense to me, even before you explained them again the past days. Yet this family specific behaviour of the 5 CM2 games leaves me wondering why. Some examples: The terrain and building features of each game are not identified unique. Meaning that if you put such gamedata from another game it will mostly overwrite the appearance of terrain, yet not enterily; some things are unique. As if Battlefront copied the whole CMBN game over to CMFI, then started to paint over the existing bitmaps and such. I imagine this as the fastest way to get results, but this way ensures that that game cannot be unified. At least not without redefining all the terrain textures. In Final Blitzkrieg there are quite few new terrain objects, like fences, but they are not present in CMBN v4. I imagine in a unified workflow this would automatically get ported over, but seemingly not in CM2. The UI graphics in CMFB are a little different from CMBN. One cannot copy over a UI graphics mod from one to the other. Tank riders are supported in only some Engine 4 games. Then I guess terrain specific logic, like bocage properties, could also be in the same codebase with if/switch-case statements. Or different code defines for includes. But I have no way to percieve that in the end product. Another thing, and this is unavoidable: there is the legacy that intitial release of CMBN has all the gigs of data installed, and a developer may want to reorganize that, rename things, relocate things; but then all customers have to reinstall. Though I have seen smart patches from other companies do such a reorganisation: not one datafile looked like the same after. I am talking about the Strike Fighters 2 game/sim from Third Wire, which is also very nice example of how to make 5 games seperate yet mergable. The above is just me wondering, maybe a lack of understanding. While I am putting effort to write this I might as well put this here too: 1) Why no support for PNG, TGA or DDS instead of uncompressable BMP images? BMP is an obsolete image format, and alpha channel BMP cannot be used in Photoshop (In my old version 6.0) So I have to copy-paste over from a program called Pixelformer for that reason. 2) As I said earlier, Please make the quick battle 'mix' force a force with mixed infantry and armor, at all times. Or add another option to give just that, in case you feel there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of a 'mix' force. It is annoying to fight a 'mix' force only to find it could not stand a chance with what the game came up with, afterwards. Quite a few times there is not one infantry unit in such a force, and I actually have to dismount some AFV crew to have at least some people to occupy a building. It gets tedious. And I think part of the essence of the Quick Battle is to be able to provide a game that is less tedious and time consuming. Sorry for that complaint, but I want to state it as clearly as I can.
  14. Great to see all the new content that is in the works. Yet I am just a very casual player and have not even finished a single campaign in any of the games yet... Personally I am more interested in improvements to the game engine (especially for use in quick battles) compared to more late war content. CMSF2 is a very exciting prospect in that regard. I assume it will feature the quick battle unit selection dialog and some more agressive quick battle AI. At the delayed release of CMFI engine 4, it was hinted that there were some unit data fixes that could be applied to CMBN as well, in a patch. Then maybe tune the unit behaviour under artillery/mortar fire, especially for the CMFI gameplay. Is such a patch still planned?
  15. Kevin2k

    Any news about CMFI 4.0 release

    Glad to hear that it has been improved, I use it for the brief time that I have to play a small battle. You have a good point with the KG Peiper. It raises the question though; what does a 'Mix' force mean exactly? In my imagination it meant part infantry + part armor. What you describe for KG Peiper could be called a 'Historically Random' force. Would there be no infantry around these King Tigers at all? My personal aim for a quick battle force is at least 1 tank with at least 25 infantry. The rest can be whatever. Otherwise things get tedious and prolonged. Either the Armor cannot recon enemy positions or the infantry has no mobile heavy support. Usually there is armor in the force. I am not sure if I ever got 100% infantry in a Engine 4 Mix force game. So that is good. But I still hope for a >=25 infantry check added to the 'Mix' force auto-picker. Restarting is not much of a problem in case you don't like your own force, but preferably the enemy force is an unknown to the player that has to be discovered through playing.
×