Jump to content

M Hofbauer

Members
  • Posts

    1,792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M Hofbauer

  1. Originally posted by Tankbuster:

    Actually I am more of a Strategy person,

    Originally posted by Tankbuster:

    It certainly looks full of content, so much so that it will probably be a clickfest running through all those menus and tabs. I am just not a fan of turn based strategy and much prefer to think about strategies on the fly in real time.

    uhm... ok....

    hey, I am a big strategy person, I like to go into HalfLife team Fortress or Duke Nukem and really do some strategy with my big gun... I am the fastest when it comes to strategy... one time, I had quad damage and simply 0\/\/n3D the map ! r0xx0r5 !!1!111

    Originally posted by Jussi Köhler:

    :D Every morning I log on to this forum and am even more surprised abot how we day by day are more and more overrun by these classic teenage FPSers and their intelligent posts...

    ok, where do i sign?
  2. Originally posted by traemyn:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

    Do we get upper and lower armour values?

    Please don't tell me that this is another step back.

    I see Top and Bottom hull armor values, are you talking about something else? </font>
  3. Originally posted by 1Cowboy8:

    Damn....scroll back through these posts and NOT ONE STATES: "Well I guess if the enemy AI is sharp enough to wipe out my troops then I guess MY troop AI should be good enough to handle a situation that arises and wipe out those enemy troops just as easily."

    Hmm think about them apples for a second.....If you didn't like the enemy AI then this game would be your coffee cup coaster before you could say "Jiminy Cricket this game sucks". Soooo, I guess if the AI is good enough to be shot at and not roll over, then it should be good enough to be on your team too.

    you're lumping together tacAI and strategic AI.

    those are two entirely different cups of tea.

  4. CM, GICombat and even IIRC CloseCombat, at least in the later versions, differentiated between upper and lower hull armor values, a differentiation that makes sense when you think of it, w/r/t tank design and therefore most tank models. non-turreted vehicles would consequently have lower and upper superstructure armor values.

    but the hell with armor values - we have fancy graphics with different skins ! its just like a WinAmp player ! all the kool kids have kool skins on their tiger tanks.

    what better way to spend resources than to create the n-th tiger skin, preferrably a black, or hot red with rallye stripes.

    [ September 27, 2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

  5. there is no right or wrong in this debate.

    even the opponents of the turn-based system cannot claim realism because it is just as unnatural to be hovering over the battlefield, zooming here and there, with the ability to be with every unit and having total map knowledge.

    if such a game was to be anywhere near realistic, and this is a very old description, at this type of battle you would have to be sitting somewhere to the rear with only a fractional view of the battlefield, and getting reports (status reports, contacts, casualties) every now and then via messenger or radio, and give out orders the same way. the more ego-shooter inclined out there might feel tempted to have some FPS alter-ego - type commander guy running around the frontline trying to shout orders to the units out there.

    --> this is a game, no matter whether it is RTS or turn-based, it is nowhere near realistic.

    if you accept that fact, then you have to admit it is simply a matter of taste how one likes to be entertained by such a game.

    some people like the adrenaline rush of having to deal with several threats at once, with the chaos of war, with the urgent need to manage after unexpected things happen or go wrong.

    others like to sit back and play their game with a cup of tea or coffee and a biscuit. they like to ponder over things, revel in planning, check on everyone of their soldiers.

    neither one is right or wrong, since it is a matter of personal taste.

    though I do tend to think one can get used to playiong the other way, too, even if it might seem awkward (rts --> turn-based) or chaotic/stressful (tunr-based-->rts) at first.

    [ September 26, 2006, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

  6. Kettler is right.

    only a few examples of the PzF 150 had been delivered for an initial troop trial.

    dont do the PzF 150.

    you'ld be closer to reality even with modeling the Luftfaust-B. :rolleyes:

    to quote the famous Captain S.:

    BTS plz fix or do sumfink !!

  7. Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

    oh, and when Lanzfeld - rightly so ! - talks about machine guns jamming, I talk about reloading and barrel change...!

    regards,

    M. H.

    Well.....I agree that we should simulate barrel changes as well but my point was that we had MG jamming in previous games and no barrel changes but now we have neither. We are going backwards here! :rolleyes: [/QB]</font>
  8. Originally posted by FAI:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC:

    Well, you know there was that one Pz IV that got credit for sinking a destroyer or somefink around the Dunkirk timeframe....

    There was...? :eek: </font>
  9. Originally posted by Arkel:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Arkel:

    Aren't you the cool guys, picking on 1C's and BF's pottentially new customers, which will help make this game big and ensure future addons by higher sales. :rolleyes:

    they're definitely new and only potentially customers ;)

    and your theory also implies the game would move towards mass appeal which means we end up with PanzerStrike or Theater of Conquer.

    or somefink.

    Ow july ded ?

    see.

    Tendjewberrymud. </font>

  10. Originally posted by Arkel:

    Aren't you the cool guys, picking on 1C's and BF's pottentially new customers, which will help make this game big and ensure future addons by higher sales. :rolleyes:

    they're definitely new and only potentially customers ;)

    and your theory also implies the game would move towards mass appeal which means we end up with PanzerStrike or Theater of Conquer.

    or somefink.

    Ow july ded ?

    see.

    Tendjewberrymud.

  11. Originally posted by Kong:

    This thread officially marks the end of the old grog centric and relatively mature(which I use VERY loosely) BFC forums and ushers in the generally young inmature leet crowd.

    Sigh... BFC forums it has been a great 6 years for me.

    Kong

    Member

    Member # 3447

    Posts: 352 | Registered: Sep 2000

    :rolleyes:

    n00b !!1!

  12. Originally posted by FAI:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC:

    Well, you know there was that one Pz IV that got credit for sinking a destroyer or somefink around the Dunkirk timeframe....

    There was...? :eek: </font>
×
×
  • Create New...