Jump to content

aka_tom_w

Members
  • Content Count

    8,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aka_tom_w

  1. The iPad is optimized for certain types of applications. Resource hungry, CPU intensive, 3D games are not what the iPad is optimized for.

    I would like to suggest that might be fair to say about the iPad1 and even the iPad2 but the New iPad is supposed to be A LOT faster and better at handling "Resource hungry, CPU intensive, 3D games" if I am not mistaken. CM Touch runs pretty well on my iPad2 but I would really like to see and feel the difference of how the New iPad would handle the game. FWIW

  2. Don't sell yourselves short just because of what you think the App Store market is. If you can make it work, don't hold back!

    OK but clearly there are some hard/real technical limits that any iPad game has to work within, and from what they are saying, they have forsaken the iPad 1 as lacking the minimum hardware standard to make the game work and I am guessing they are pushing the limit of what they can do given the technical limitations of the iPad2

    I agree with the main thrust of your point, "they should put the peddle to the metal and GivER!" but I would humbly suggest they are in fact doing just that, having played CM Touch today for about 2 hrs!

  3. One thing I do really like about the iPad is that there are a lot more turn-based games and more traditional non-action / non-twitch games on it.

    Like what?

    Sorry I may be a little to Combat Mission "centric" and I am sorry I don't know what else out there like turn base strategy games are available for my iPad2? (I am also cheap and tend to only look for the free downloads. What I am missing?)

    thanks

  4. Just 5 bucks for the app? -- that's the part that may be an April Fools joke.... Unless you're planning to generate a revenue stream for additional content, vehicles, scenarios, etc.

    Ever play Angry Birds? (they give that game away for free, but they SELL you the Eagles you need to succeed.)

    It would not surprise me that other scenarios maps and vehicles will pop up on iTunes for $0.99 each. BUT I am JUST guessing. ;)

  5. Yes, mentioned only once here is the Battle of Midway Island which was HUGELY decisive for the US Navy in the Pacific. I think the Japanese navy lost 4 carriers in the one. I am not sure of the actual stats but a large chunk of the Japanese Navy was pretty much dropped to the bottom of the Pacific in that one. (once again, due exclusively to code breaking by the Allies !)

    I would vote Midway as one of the most decisive naval battles of WWII IMHO

  6. I've already explained why I think time constraints are important. If you disagree, that's fine and we'll agree to disagree. I think they're appropriate and the time constraints in these missions are very reasonable. If you're finding it too difficult, accept the loss and drop down to the Green level where you frequently get more time and artillery. More help winning in general. There's no point in me creating a variable difficulty campaign if players are not going to accept any losses. I might as well just make it linear.

    EXACTLY

    War is Hell ...

    and

    this game is hard.

    Lets move on and figure out how to get triggers into the next release.... ;)

    :cool:

  7. As it stands now, the scenario designer has to draw up time based plans and do a lot of guesswork on how the player might approach a scenario. This is archaic, ridiculous and inefficient; a big time sink. Even the really good scenarios have their wtf moments due to BFCs approach to scenario design. What is sorely needed is a ground up overhaul of the scenario editor. An editor that allows for triggers and scripting languages. I believe this would make both camps happy.

    Well put.

    I think (at least I hope) plans for implementing at least some of this suggestion (above) are currently on the drawing board.

    But once again, as it has been mentioned over and over, this is not simple and it is especially not easy to make it work as intended.

    There should be no doubt that EVERYONE wants triggers...

    (ok ok, a caveat, everyone except the programmers who have to actually make it work in the game code ;) )

  8. This is interesting. The player does have enough time to adjust his plan if it's working out. What he doesn't have enough time to do is to regroup and redeploy his forces to attack on the other flank. Further, it implies that losing is not an option. Missions should never be lost, ever! I honestly can't get to grips with that attitude. I like it when a mission kicks my butt and I am more than willing to return to it and try something different if necessary. Frankly, if I play something and I win it first time, I'm disappointed. Where's the value for my money? I want to win but I don't want it to be easy, at least all the time.

    EXACTLY! I could not have said it any better myself. :cool:

    Many folks here who have been playing this game since the CM:BO demo came out, (and are now scenario designers or beta testers and AI specialists) share this exact same credo. (it better be hard or I didn't get my money's worth!) :eek:

    I am reminded of a Episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where Geordie thought it would be "fun" (?) to let the holo deck create a character or a scenario with the "potential" to play out a mystery that Data (acting the role of Sherlock Holmes) would be unable to solve. (It was a great episode.)

    So for those new to the game, that's what you are up against, a team of folks who think it would be fun to make the game challenging enough that the AI has a fighting chance to defeat a skilled opponent. Just wait until they/we roll out "triggers" for the AI and watch the wailing begin all over again. ;) (for now the setting of the time could be considered a crutch pending more and better tools (triggers) to let the AI counter attack based on movement and/or the advance path of the attacker.)

    [rant]

    From the note below, here is the key part: "who was somehow imbued with a measure of consciousness" for those more familiar with the Terminator series of movies (I am a HUGE fan), I could also use the phrase: "became self aware", for tech geeks (especially with in this game) it could be said (at least I hope I can say this) its like the Holy Grail of computer game programming to make game with an AI that sort of "comes alive" and becomes capable of tactics and strategy and plays hard and gives you a good fight like in fishing when you hook a really large Bass and try to land it, sometimes the fish wins (gets off the hook) and sometimes the you win and land the fish. A self aware/conscious AI opponent is my goal for sure! (NOW before my good friend Phil Culliton [First Second Programmer\] :-) jumps all over me, we all know this is REALLY REALLY hard to pull off and currently not possible to do in this game, which we should all be reminded retails for a VERY affordable price for what you get.)

    [/rant]

    I will reference the Start Trek episode here:

    After that Geordi gives Data a smoking pipe and invites Data to take part in a Sherlock Holmes holographic story. Data, who has memorized all of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes, instantly recognizes the story (Scandal in Bohemia) after only the first few moments, and immediately solves the case. La Forge abruptly freezes the program and storms out of the holodeck.

    Talking over the incident in Ten Forward, La Forge and Data are overheard by Dr. Katherine Pulaski, who states that Data is incapable of solving a real mystery. Data takes this as a challenge, and invites Pulaski to join La Forge and him in another Holmes story. This time, the computer is instructed to create a new mystery in the Holmes style. This is less than successful, however, because the computer merely combines elements of the existing Holmes stories in a way that Data is again easily able to solve.

    Geordi makes another try, however, and carefully instructs the computer to create a story and a character capable of defeating Data. The new program runs and the three are off on their new adventure. The story takes an unexpected twist when Dr. Pulaski is actually kidnapped by Sherlock Holmes' arch-enemy, Professor James Moriarty, who was somehow imbued with a measure of consciousness and witnessed the use of the holodeck arch. Moriarty desires to learn more, and makes it easy for Data to track him and his hostage. Upon being handed a hand-drawn profile of the USS Enterprise-D by Moriarty, Data immediately leaves the holodeck with La Forge following in confusion. Meanwhile, Moriarty learns a great deal about the Enterprise from the computer, and somehow constructs a crude device that toggles attitude control in the holodeck. He uses this several times, causing the ship to shudder uncontrollably.

    Meeting with Captain Picard and the senior officers, La Forge figures out that it was his instructions to create an adversary capable of defeating Data, not Sherlock Holmes, that initiated the holodeck override control and is preventing them from ending the holodeck program. Picard decides that he must personally meet with Moriarty, whom he confronts, but who is adamant that he is sentient and self-aware, and should be allowed to continue to exist. After Moriarty releases Dr. Pulaski and returns control of the ship to Captain Picard, Picard explains that the ship's computer can store Moriarty's character indefinitely, and that the Federation would work on a way to bring Moriarty out of the holodeck. Moriarty's program is stored and ended, and the matter is considered closed. Picard then goes down to engineering where La Forge is overlooking the model of the HMS Victory. Picard then asks if it will sail, to which La Forge replies that it will. The USS Victory arrives.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Elementary,_Dear_Data_(episode)

  9. I would think my personal state of happiness of lack thereof is rather irrelevant to the issue. But I appreciate your concern :rolleyes:

    I doubt there is any hard numbers to be found on that. But the first-hand account I posted in the other thread suggested a more dramatic difference.

    From what I have read it may not have even been possible to see an enemy tank at 2000m through the Sherman gun sight. BadgerDog said something to that effect in the previous thread.

    BadgerDog has first hand experience so that helps for sure.

×
×
  • Create New...