MarkEzra
-
Posts
4,770 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by MarkEzra
-
-
No you're fine...in fact have another...But Unit A has had enough...Get their keys and call 'em a cab...
-
Ahhhh so you caught it. That was actually sent during my PBEM with Max Molinaro (Ruhr River). He is VERY good a "photoquips" hmmm have I just invented a word? And I was responding to one of his. But while it was all in fun. The medics are one of my real favorites. A visual reminder of the cost of war. And my true ignorance of the nature of combat....
Saw a post of yours elsewhere: Here's a thought by Old Winnie: "When you are going through Hell...Keep Going!"
-
Good because that's what I was thinking! When you compare VERY similar maps from the two engines it really hits home. Accuracy of scale was a must for me in my pre PC, mini armour days.
-
Pics:
Or look at the Chance Encounter Map for CMSF and Check out the CMAK version...You may well get abetter visual representation from your own PC screen. Then again I could be just seeing things...So please set me straight
[ November 30, 2007, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]
-
My meter is bigger than your meter...We are all pretty well versed on both the CMx1 and CMx2 editor. This question just keep buzzing in my head...Here's how it started:
I started work on "Last Defense" using the copied version from CMAK (later got a screen shot of CMBO editor to confirm map with original) Noting exactly the metric map size I started work in CMx2 editor. The visualisation of a meter is far more expansive than CMx1. The original map is claustrophobic by comparison. I understand visual resolution and size must play a roll but what do you all think makes the difference so pronounced? I'll try to get a side by side pic up for your viewing pleasure.
-
OOOch...Damned that hurt That's because there is NO patch and I am having a Nightmare about....
-
G B Scurlock said:
"Despite these things I had FUN. It just makes me think what a GREAT game this can be. I just hope the developers feel that things can in fact be fixed. They aren't saying so I will just have to wait and see."
JohnO Said:
JohnO 11/29 on response to a scen design question involving Multiplayer use:
"I can say that the multi-player aspect of it is being tested as we speak, I know I'm one of the tester testing it and so far its working. It will be in v105 which it will be coming soon."
-
Sorry: I thought I was being helpful but this is theWood thread. He said:
"I was really looking to see if BFC would come out at some point and clue us in. I have heard before from beta tester about soon and a couple of days and was just curious if asking nicely would get something."
I have deleted the recent Beta Tester commment as it seems not to rise to the level required for this thread. My apologies to thewood and to any others who felt the info sub-par.
[ November 30, 2007, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]
-
Gautrek: The people here at the nursing home are so nice...they give me extra pudding at night!
[ November 30, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]
-
Paper Tiger said:
"Well, it's up to Battlefront to regulate their own forums. I promised to myself when I came here not to get involved in negative slanging matches with others. Yesterday, I made a mistake and let my feelings show and I slipped. Time to back off and just post hopefully helpful posts again."
"Acceptance is the KEY" People who are pissed off...ARE (good or bad reason not withstanding)
Continue to post, please!
-
I really enjoy the infantry The game's graphics are a CONSTANT reminder of just how great a leader I am!Originally posted by Rick:The difference in peoples abilities with these games is interesting. The only thing I do well with infantry is if I'm defending I can usually do a good job of making sure that my enemy's tanks don't have good infantry support.
I think my weakness is that I'm lousy at foreseeing all the possible locations my enemy might have automatic weapons that will quickly cause me heavy casualties.
Oh well, at operational level games I'm just not very good, period. I'm torn as to my feelings toward them too. I like how you can see your impact on the battle better than in a game at CM's level, however, my main interest in the military lies in the equipment and you get to play around with that stuff directly in a CM level game. My main interest is actually naval aviation, but I've never found an air warfare game that I've really been happy with.
-
Because I love a mystery!
-
Sorry, but Steve has stated on multiple occasions that that is never going to happen for two reasons:Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
4. have confidence in BFC's willingness to create the kind of QB Game program we, in fact, had with CMx1. But I don't loose sleep over it, or think it's a deal breaker. I do play QB's and bide my time.
1) The new C&C model apparently makes it impossible to "just plop in" non-TO&Ed units.
2) No way in hell (I believe he said) is he going to devise and deliver a points-based system again.
Again, I'm personally appalled at these decisions, but he's been pretty open and clear about them pretty much since Release Day.
But as some few (including myself) have speculated, maybe the Cone of Silence and delay time for 1.05 is because Steve has rethought such core decisions. I have no idea but it's theoretically possible.
-dale </font>
-
I need to set the record straight on Random Map Generators and user made mapsOriginally posted by Phillip Culliton:I dunno, Mark. It's not so much that I say "yuck" to user-made maps (except my own, which are invariably workmanlike at best), but that I would say "whee!" to having random maps. I loves me some random maps.
In fact, part of my problem with creating computer wargames as a hobby is that I just can't NOT write a map generator. It is a pain, and time-consuming, and sometimes it's where I just throw up my hands and say "non!" and scrap the whole damn project (in fact I tend to evaluate the doability of projects by how easy it would be to write a map gen for them), but always worth it when I manage to finish them.
Seriously, if I were to write a Napoleonic wargame (something I was writing up the specs for the other night... we'll see)... I'd create a random map generator for it.
It's a sickness. Possibly an addiction?
I just like the idea that, with one push of a button, I can be playing on terrain I've never seen before, with new challenges laid before me. Mmmm. Warm and fuzzy.
Edit: Hey thewood. Honestly, I don't think BFC has any intention of spending money to "recover" CM:SF this late in the game. They're trying to fix the engine (and perhaps their reputation?) in time for their grogbase to accept CM:Marines, which I'll note maintains the same modern bent that not everyone is looking for. CM:SF improvements are a side benefit I think.
1. I rarely used CMx1 random maps once I got into the editor. But I was happy to have it there for when I felt lazy or when I REALLY wanted a quick Battle. I believe that Dale pointed out sometime back that QB's are called QB for that reason. And he is correct.
2. The CM:SF QB editor seems to have been a late entry and clearly is not up to the caliber of the CMx1 engine. While user generated maps have partially solved the problem a random map generator would be most welcome. Steve has spoken to this point in the past.
3. The Force selection for CM:SF QB is not broken. It's unnecessarily rigid. I'll choose my own forces, if you please. It is nearly a universally held opinion. I figure BFC got that message loud and clear.
4. have confidence in BFC's willingness to create the kind of QB Game program we, in fact, had with CMx1. But I don't loose sleep over it, or think it's a deal breaker. I do play QB's and bide my time.
-
It's old time for me, Abbott...I didn't do ladders then, don't now... I play with old friends that haven't played CM in years. You got a problem with that?
-
Rick said: The PBEM bugs were in my opinion the most serious...
It was very worrisome....I was glad to see it fixed. I'd say rock solid now. I have had the good fortune to re-connect with old CMBO PBEM pals. Like old times, now
-
Couldn't agree more. I will definitley want to put my views forward. But for now I'm very pleasedOriginally posted by Adam1:A huge step forward from CM's original AI it is. But it needs a lot more player control to work. Right now it's in this middleground where it's not intelligent enough to work without player scripting (which is ok) but there aren't the tools to script. I'm curious what Aaron thinks about the "AI" in Steel Beasts, which has a lot of scripting tools but won't do anything unless you write the doctrine for each scenario. And what is an example of a good wargame AI? I respect AB and his opinions so I'm not asking this rhetorically.
-
Funny is taking a re-signing bonus that stipulates a certain period of time. Going to war for your country...getting your leg blown off. Get a letter from the Pentagon telling you that you owe 'em money cause you didn't do your full tour...Yeah...I just laughed my ass off when my Repugnacant Congressman Votes against Increasing Veteran benefit.
Nicoch is right...Take this witty crap elsewhere
-
From you and Huntarr of course! </font>Originally posted by Abbott:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
I would like to better understand where you get your information about the game. Is it word of mouth or practical application. Any Harm in knowing which (or some other method you have) it is?
-
AB: You said "quote
"3) true, I only have the demo. Having said that, between studying the demo and reading here, it's easy to have a lousy AI plan and game it. It looks like some very well-made scenarios act OK from the strategic perspective, but a lot of them don't. The fact that the game requires an AI plan, rather than being enhanced by them, strikes me as "fundamentally flawed" because of the ripple effect on QB's."
That you don't like player directed AI pathing is a personal preference. I don't pretend to understand your view. You need to be aware that the AI for CM:SF QB is the same found throughout any CMx1 game: QB or Scen. I play CM:SF QB very often and see the same wonderfully exciting and plain dirt stupid AI that is the center piece of the CMx1 franchise. Doesn't mean I don't love it old or new. It is what it is. I love the new AI for scen. and consider it a huge step forward for CM.
-
I would like to better understand where you get your information about the game. Is it word of mouth or practical application. Any Harm in knowing which (or some other method you have) it is?
-
Tom,Originally posted by Abbott:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Cut the crap.
Dalem, if you not even bought the game yet (have you?) then you are not even a customer. (never mind the part about the 'customer is always right')
I haven't bought CMSF yet but I think I'm a BFC customer. I have purchased CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and T-72. In the future I also plan to purchase something based on the CMX2 engine. Does that not meet your criteria? </font>
-
That makes two of usOriginally posted by Rick:One reason I wanted to write this is to make sure that there are a few voices telling Battlefront, "ok, we're furstrated with the bugs (also lack of artillery smoke) and we expect you to fix them, but in general we really like this game.
Another social phenomenon showing its head here is that the unhappy people talk (or write in this case) louder than the happy people.
-
Sirroco said "The random maps I think are gone because of the greater complexity of the AI plans. But if enough are generated I don't see a problem with it. You don't like the map, close it and start again, as with QB's in CMx1 now. I think it has to ship with enough maps for it to work out of the box, though, and not rely specifically on the community to make it work."
You have it exactly right....When people say "Yuck" to user made maps...I no longer start to sniffle and sob...It's likely they have never seen one...good bad or indifferent. It's likely they are comparing to CMx1 or some other game they have played. This is an outstanding editor...best I know of. There are now over 200 maps available ( www.CMMODS.com ) for DL ready and designed specifically for QB play. Also ANY scen map can be used as a QB....before you try this at home, kids, be sure those setup zones are big enough to handle the Battalion you plan to use!
Hype and Whining
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The following are Facts NOT in dispute:
Did Paradox meet it's contract Obligations?..Yes
Did BFC meet Their contract Obligation?..No
Could Paradox have further extended the time to ensure a proper product was published... Yes
Could BFC have extended the time to ensure a proper product was delivered to consumers?... No
Do anyone BUT BFC and Paradox know the internal discussions that took place prior or after July release? No
Does NDA allow the parties to speak? No.
The Following IS subject to YOUR interpretation:
Does Paradox seem Concerned about product quality?
Is BFC Concerned about product quality?
Is Paradox to Blame for a shoddy product release?
Is BFC to Blame for a Shoddy product release?
Are Both to Blame?
Will Blame fix the apparent epidemic of unfinished products being published?
What type of action...if any... Should consumers take?
Do you think there is a relationship between small niche developers and large publishers and buggy games that does not exist in the large Game developers of "popular" games?
[ December 02, 2007, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]