MarkEzra
-
Posts
4,770 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by MarkEzra
-
-
Oh Im sorry, its just that Im used with the activity level of the CMx1 forums... but this is great! </font>Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
This forum not dead like you keep saying...most of us just waiting...You are clearly in need of glasses.
-
Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
People stuck in a time warp just can't be helped.
That's the spirit! Don't search for a longer stick to stretch to a drowning man, let him drown! It's his fault for getting in the water in the first place.
What was WAS... What is IS... what shall be WILL BE...see if you can get that. Shouldn't be too, too difficult as it's linear thinking...usually easy for engineers.
So Sayeth the Lord, eh?
Another fact is this: I can call the cable company, one of the most loathed utilities in the country, and get a human to speak with me every time.The Facts are these: BFC announced in Aug that incremental patches would be needed. V1.04 made the game playable for most..Finally. But not all. BFC is working on an apparently significant patch and has kept "we're working on it" updates coming very regularly. Most forum readers expect some degree of make or break on V 1.05. I don't know that to be true but sounds good to me. Potential customers need to know that. Comments from you and others are predictable in their distaste for this game and BFC management. There is another view, not clouded by vitriol or supposed slights and insults, that is actually the majority view: I play the game, I like the game, and I'll see what BFC can do to improve game play, LOS/LOF, TCP for WEGO and QB. If they can Great...I knew it along. If they can't then a heaping bowl of crow for them...and if you like...for me.
There are times when the reality doesn't matter and perception takes over.
-dale </font>
-
Huh? Nothing Ive seen would indicate this. The reviews are bland, and the forums are "dead". Not exactly what I would expect if this game was played and enjoyed by so many as you seem to indicate. </font>Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
There is another view, not clouded by vitriol or supposed slights and insults, that is actually the majority view: I play the game, I like the game
-
Infantry do walk in column when using "move". Vehicles must be individually pathed but certainly don't have the "bumper cars" issues of old CM. And thank God for small favors. I have never trusted formation move orders of any game. Most likely that's because my PC Wargaming roots is Steel Panthers. I feel pretty certain it's why I had so little trouble with CMx1 or CMx2 pathing during game play. There are issues...mostly resolved with CMx2. And of course CMx1 is what it is. So for vehicles I just as soon line 'em up myself. Now Infantry is something different.
I would love to see the ability to use "Line Abreast" movement orders...akin to the marvelous Arty line to line fire now in the game. As it is Infantry squads on advance use Overwatch only. An excellent tactic certainly and the most obvious method of moving. But clearing an area of woods or open space would do well with line abreast...and look cool in the process.
-
Kite: That's way too rational...and welcome to the family!!
-
I forgot to mention: check set up by starting game and call a cease fire. You can now review the entire map and all setup position...By timing the cease fire call you can see where AL forces are in a given time
-
People stuck in a time warp just can't be helped.Originally posted by Dirtweasle:So it seems we're past "getting it" or "not getting it", eh?
Some of you are now well into rationalizing a poor product roll out, odd game mechanics and UI, flawed documentation, compounded by lousy customer communication, and etc, and moving into demonizing customers, (and potential customers), not willing to suspend disbelief and agree the emperor has a fine set of clothes.
What was WAS... What is IS... what shall be WILL BE...see if you can get that. Shouldn't be too, too difficult as it's linear thinking...usually easy for engineers.
The Facts are these: BFC announced in Aug that incremental patches would be needed. V1.04 made the game playable for most..Finally. But not all. BFC is working on an apparently significant patch and has kept "we're working on it" updates coming very regularly. Most forum readers expect some degree of make or break on V 1.05. I don't know that to be true but sounds good to me. Potential customers need to know that. Comments from you and others are predictable in their distaste for this game and BFC management. There is another view, not clouded by vitriol or supposed slights and insults, that is actually the majority view: I play the game, I like the game, and I'll see what BFC can do to improve game play, LOS/LOF, TCP for WEGO and QB. If they can Great...I knew it along. If they can't then a heaping bowl of crow for them...and if you like...for me.
-
Testing is a chore, no doubt. Having a "view all units" will make it far more easy. I tend to design with all options/all plans full. So it takes me longer to produce. But I actually enjoy the process of defining movement with terrain...so it's a labor of love. When I upload to CMMODS it's like I just sent my son on his first day a school...with great pride mixed with a little fear and trepidation....LOL
I generally design with WEGO first in mind. It is the most restrictive time/movement play style. RT generally falls in place when I do that. H2H is always the trick. The Blue 21st century vs the Red late 20th century needs careful thought. I'd like to see designer Notes more completely used so that players know what balance issue are in play and how they are effected or dealt with in scoring.
-
Interesting. I assume that the soldiers in the vehicle were:
1. not an antitank team specifically detached
2. healthy and in good morale
3. at the correct bus stop
There is no group vehicle only selection Each vehicle will need to be individually selected for individual task. A point of note on this. My game play experience is that using mass movement in any area that has obstacle like trees, swamps or bldgs or subject to accurate enemy fire is fraught with peril. You force the AI to decide the pathing around them. The results can be excellent (why didn't I see that?) or tragic (what idiot is driving that tank!!) If you are familiar with Steel Panthers and it's group movement control, then you'll know that it is best used sparingly.
-
No great way but I always Test in "Basic Training" first. By the way Veteran and Elite both may have timing difference that could effect your scen...especially if you are very precise in your AI pathing timing or arty needs. You should do final testing in all three.
-
Dale:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was you who said That CM2 should keep all the same abstractions...the 3 guys are 12 the bullets stop where ever...corners are not actually corners and tanks can somehow shoot around them or through them in 20 meter abstraction... Fine...you keep it...For me I'm going with CM:SF...I don't think I'm going alone, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point to a single post where I asked for those things. You can't. What I have bemoaned is the same thing that gave me pause almost exactly 7 years ago: 1:1 that is not really 1:1 causes more problems than it solves.
Fair enough question. But really a hair splitter, isn't it? I am willing to concede that I Can NOT point to any post that specifically states 3/12 men, abstractions ect. You should, however concede that your wish was to improve on the exisiting engine with those abstractions. And that, of course, is my point.
What your view is regarding 1:1 is well known to me. I don't pretend to know all that much about it. As a consumer of BFC's products I do encourage them to go with this engine and move forward with improved graphic display while not weakening accuracy and fidelity of detail. They think they can do it. I take them at their word You have your doubts. At some point we will all know the answer.
I definitely disagree regarding random maps. The community always produces exceptional maps, the Game maps are pretty Blah. BFC has said their looking at some method. So OK, great... I might even try to use it. But I do see it would be an essential for many a player. Regarding Force picks I totally agree and I'm ready to grab a pitchfork and Storm the Bastille!... The QB generator should be brought into proper, workable order sooner than say TCP for WEGO. But like you say...it's an opinion.
[ November 26, 2007, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]
-
Hev's got it right...To hear some folks talk you'd think that BFC's looking for a fast buck and faster exit. To hear some folks talk you'd think that good wargaming companies are on every street corner. To hear some folks talk you'd think that the world is just full of people begging to play pixel war. To hear some folks...why it's enough to make you go deaf.
-
Abbot: Isn't your info 2nd hand...You don't own the game or do you? Have you played it v 1.04? Or just the Demo. I am under the impression you have not played it. Am I wrong?
To your point:
I PLAY the game DAILY. I don't have any particular problems with troop movement in or out of buildings. I do understand that there are still reports of assault teams lining up to be mowed down. I believe the beta testers are aware of this. As they are a number of movement LOS/LOF abstractions. As to trench line..Order them to "move" and they will walk right down the trench line in file. Of course CM trenches were really designed to defend from so generally I set up a base of fire in one and assault the next...but that's just me... You don't have these kinds of problems in CMx1 because it is entirely abstracted...no doors to worry about, no need to find windows to shoot from...Trenches are nice flat dark things Oh the joys of old CM. if we could all just go there and live our lives abstracted. Sorry to say Abbott but thems the old days...It's been a VERY rough start for CMx2 and it's taking a lot of time to get straighted out (patch by patch...just like BFC said). But I like the direction that BFC is going. You might want to keep in mind that CMBO was completely scrapped to move on to CMBB...No BMPs worth using...too graphically tiny, No CMBO scen could be played on CMBB. Just a brand new game. So you wait it out, Me I'm playing the game and lovin every minute of it.
[ November 26, 2007, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]
-
Dale: It was you who said the CMx1 was the greatest war game made...You put aside ASL for it. It was you who said That CM2 should keep all the same abstractions...the 3 guys are 12 the bullets stop where ever...corners are not actually corners and tanks can somehow shoot around them or through them in 20 meter abstraction... Fine...you keep it...For me I'm going with CM:SF...I don't think I'm going alone, either. Oh, by the way...I think BFC's customer service is just fine.
-
And for all that I'd still play CMBO. Bugs, oddities and downright weirdness included. Even if CMSF were patched to perfection. </font>Originally posted by Sirocco:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum
-
At least CMx1 HAD an AI. </font>Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
Yep That terrible AI.
-
Yep That terrible AI. I'm Fed up with the AI battalion CO leading the charge...well...just behind the light un-armed vehicles...I'm Fed Up with MG crews able to shoot out of all four sides of a building...Yeah a LARGE building at that. I'm REALLY Fed Up with weapons unable to penetrate light trees more than 40 meters but go straight into concrete buildings killing my troops "Hiding"... Tanks that can't even drive up a road without hitting one another, pausing so the tank behind him gets hit...and then gets it's ass blown up for just sitting there being stupid. what is this crap...I thought I was getting the real deal not a load of BS abstractions I definitely got ripped off......Oh...wait That's all CMx1...sorry wrong forum
-
If the QB unit selector had a dedicated slot for BLUE ATGM/AT as it does for RED the problem would be solved.Originally posted by tankibanki:Yes, there is probably no way to get it to work in QBs right now.
I'm not sure about being able to setup after baking, but I guess you are right there, too.
-
My technique:
1. Choose the map size
2. Using the extreme map view Draw the general map contour outlines.
3. Color the higher levels Red (or whatever) for easy viewing check the map in 3D view and REALLY look it over
4. Save this map
5. Now start fine tuning the map contours to get the EXACT size and shape you desire. As you work re-name and save your file....ESPECIALLY when you are trying something different that may effect the map in a major way.
-
Paper Tiger does beautiful work. You will see them in the QBG's Maps (he is "PT" in the map name) We can only hope he will share his work and not be so damned bashful!!!
-
Hi John: I'll be interested to read your "long, carefully argued post" Hope you'll be able piece it back together.
-
Thank you for your kind words. Viper's whole reason for being was to demonstrate the COMPLETE difference in scen design from old CM. I certainly agree that 8 isn't enough and that an ability to define threat level by area would be VERY cool indeed. With CMx2 in it's infancy I'm sure we'll see much growth and improvement in the AI editor. It's actually very exciting.
-
I was glad to help...I'm sure the community's gonna really enjoy this scen.
-
No... definitely INtended intel...LOL....I'm afraid Max and I don't take the playing of wargames that seriously...especially Chance Encounter. Back in Beta CMBO we played the scenario to death. Made up our own rules to vary the game and Max would send reports in German....Fortunately he did not minor in any Arabic Languages....Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:Is that unintended intel? I mean now you can plan based on the loss of the tank.
Kevin
Fed up
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
2000 downloads of one scen not enough for you...?
Comparing Forum use then and now? I am well aware of how active AND inactive CMx1 forums can be...and I'm always pleased to see the CM community active... But "active" is a VERY relative term. I currently play 3 PBEMs...all with old CMBO friends....Guys for the most part who stopped playing CM anything years ago. They're having fun with this game and so am I. We re-connected with CM:SF. I figure that is active enough for me. But I must repeat 2000 downloads of one scen is nothing to sneeze at...especially with such a troubled game history as this one.