Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Moon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,042

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Moon

    Core 2 Duo?? Really?

    in Theatre of War 2 : Kursk 1943

    Posted

    By the way, just so there is no misunderstanding... TOW2 Kursk does not require the latest and fastes machine to play. Not at all. I am running it on my 5 (or so) year old Pentium D desktop. Granted, I can't run it with all bells and whistles, but at medium-low settings it's absolutely playable. On my 2 year laptop it's actually running flawlessly even with most of the bells and whistles, by the way.

    0

    Any plans for a price drop or repackaging on the other SC2 games with GC coming out?

    in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT

    Posted

    We are considering a bundle at the moment, but nothing is set in stone yet. It's not even clear how much of a savings there would be, if any. The main reason for the bundle would be cleanup to be honest (right now the customers have to hunt down all three titles and only two of them are in a bundle), rather than a price drop. However, yes, if you want to get the whole shebang (SC2, WaW and PDE), you're probably better off waiting a few weeks. On the other hand, if you want individual games, you better hurry. I am not even sure if we're going to keep offering them as individual games once the bundle is there... But again, nothing is decided just yet.

    0

    Sniper Mission Help

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    ATTENTION! SPOILERS!

    Given the huge map and short time, I was only able to use my two sniper teams to clear 4 of 8 CPs before time ran out.

    Actually, from what I recall (I designed the mission but it's been a while) you can win the mission when you reach 4 CPs as long as you stay undetected! Keep in mind that the CPs are just meant to "assist" you. You are not supposed to "clear" them. They are placed on the map (by your commanding officer) because intel is thinking that they are making for good vantage points and/or to doublecheck a specific area. The overall goal is to find out what enemy is there and where they are without giving away that an attack is staged. If you follow the mission's objectives in those broader terms, it will be easier to "win" the mission.

    1. How do you use the sniper teams to actually target a particular group? From my experience, they use a lot of ammo just trying to kill one group let alone several.

    Target arcs will get the job done, but - DO NOT USE your snipers in this mission. You will lose more points for having your guys spotted (and firing increases the chances of that happening a LOT) than you can ever gain for reaching all the CPs!

    2. Why are the mission requirements so high? When I did the British mission, I was surprised to see that I was required to eliminate the garrision units when I was supposed to be stealthy.

    I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but perhaps you are mixing up two missions? There are two missions: one is the recon where stealth is important, the second one is the actual attack. For the latter, no stealth is required (and you have more units, too, although still limited because they have to actually be helo'd in).

    3. Is there any way to keep my teams from firing?

    This was answered already. Short cover arcs are the way to go.

    0

    Good Old Games is now carrying this

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Strategy First knew what they were doing. Battlefront gave them the right to do it (apparently). So, it's just business.

    This is correct. When we enter retail deals with distributing partners, this is what one can expect (sometimes sooner, sometimes later), and we know this full well. Do we like it? No. Make that: hell no.

    But usually, the disadvantages are offset by a good overall deal and the fact that most of the super-budget customers would not normally buy from us anyway.

    When I say "usually" then I mean in instances where the distributing partner actually ends up paying royalties and we don't have to sue them. This happens quite regularly now, by the way, as the PC retail market is pretty much shot, and countless publishers either already went out of business or are on the brink of doing so.

    (By the way, Strategy First is not a distribution partner anymore as I write this, for legal reasons I cannot talk about right now).

    There is a tendency in the software market to be very aggressive in terms of pricing. It's always been there but went insane in the retail area and is now beginning to go insane in the digital space, too. Just look at some of day one (!) sales in retail, or even what Steam is doing. The reason for this is - regardless of what these people may tell you - that they want to make more money (bigger market share, quicker turnover), and this is not necessarily always in the best interest of the developer whose game gets slashed. This is one of the main reasons in fact why Battlefront went direct via the internet more than 10 years ago: we believe that a good game's value lasts much longer than retailers would have you believe, and that the developer is entitled to a bigger share at full price for the years of work that usually go into these games.

    The recent developments in the market, by the way, will see way fewer such deals from us in the future, for all of the above mentioned reasons.

    Martin

    0

    During Action Report - hcrof vs Mike Churchmoor!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    hcrof,

    The answer to your question is obvious--because they're yours! Don't know why, but that's the way the CM games seems to work. This is precisely why when I play QBs I make sure I don't pin my hopes on a few uber AFVs, since this is a proven recipe for disaster. If you don't believe me, read my ROW AARs! The Jagdpanther bogs on damp ground, then is killed by a PIAT; the Crocodile, no matter how carefully protected, eats a 'schreck round; the key tank in an armored counterattack and loaded with infantry gets bombed, destroying both and breaking others nearby; the sharpshooter painstakingly stalks into position and is killed before firing a shot; your tanks miss every time, but counterfire threads the needle, comes through two windows in a house and kills your tank destroyer; your expensive air support works great--on your men and AFVs. C'est la guerre!

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    The really funny thing is that your opponent usually is thinking the exact same thing from the exact same battle! :)

    0

    I Really Want to Buy This Game But...

    in Empires of Steel

    Posted

    I guess that coming from such complex games like HoI and WiF, it's kind of hard to not keep thinking, 'Man, this would be so much better if...' and just taking the game through its own value. I mean, heck, sometimes it's nice to fire up a game not have to worry about a thousand little details.

    Many strategy players want more and more and more details. So much so that after a while they ask themselves why the game they liked so much has become unplayable or why they never manage to finish a game anymore :)

    I say "many strategy players" based on what most strategy games in the genre have developed into nowadays. Our successes of games like Strategy Command (or even Down in Flames for that matter) may in fact indicate something else, namely that at the end of the day, it's nice to be able to fire up a game that you can play in a single night's session and enjoy. The secret to the success of such games (and EOS falls into the exact same category, by the way, if there was any doubt :)) is providing simplicity (which means better playability) without insulting people's intelligence :) This is achieved by the developer having a good instinct for what to simulate and what not to simulate. Hubert (Strategic Command) has mastered this art, and Brit (Empires of Steel) has a natural talent for it as well!

    Many of the overloaded strategy games of today for me personally are an unplayable mess of useless details. There I said it. They often absolutely lack the elegance of a design like Empires of Steel, and seem to have been created by the principle that more is better. I wonder sometimes, at the end of the day how man "fans" of these games actually end up really playing them. It reminds me a bit of those sim fans that crave for more and more detail only to end up setting everything to AI control in the end :)

    I guess I am rambling but perhaps my point is that you shouldn't value the cost of a game based on the number of bullet points of "features" on the outside packaging. Many people do this of course (which is why the games market is dominated by marketing folks, not developers), but at the end of the day the game's value comes from other, less tangible, properties. And EOS has plenty of them. Have you played EOS head-to-head yet against other people?

    0

    I Really Want to Buy This Game But...

    in Empires of Steel

    Posted

    Thanks for the feedback Akiva!

    Maybe a few words about our pricing policy for games. It is actually very consistent. The main factors boil down to general appeal, scope, replayability, editors, mods and multiplayer.

    EOS is scoring very high in most of these, actually. It's highly moddable, has incredibly in-game multiplayer features, it has endless replayability and a never ending supply of winning strategies. Unlike many other games with canned levels that are basically slightly better looking clones of the same FPS or RTS game over and over again ;) EOS is offering a LOT of gaming for your buck (or $45 bucks to be more precise).

    One thing you will find about EOS as well as all Battlefront games is that on a "per minute playtime" basis, we're scoring way ahead of most other publishers (if you like war and strategy games that is).

    Martin

    0
×
×
  • Create New...