TBlaster
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TBlaster
-
-
My friend and I have been playing CM since the first release. We don't like the newer versions, I won't go into details as it's not relevant for this topic.
What I am looking for is a Operational type game that doesn't auto-resolve combat
I know - all do.I want to be able to move pieces on a map and when enemy forces meet provide me with a list of equipment and men for both players so I can create a CM based tactical battle. After the battle the new values would be plugged back into the operational layer (manually of course as there's no way to automate this)
Long term we are looking at using the Unity engine to create our own Operational layer but we want to use a 3rd party program first.
Many years ago I used Aide de Camp 2 (board game converter) - but it's so old now I can't even make it run anymore.
Is there anything out there that doesn't auto-resolve combat and allows values to be entered?
Thanks - TB
-
Just to clarify - the platoon didn't move into the village after the bombardment ended. This game was played in Realtime and my opponent and I were using voice comms and discussed the bombardment. The map started out with damaged buildings but none of the buildings were destroyed during the shelling. Now to be fair, I didn't look to see if any of the shells actually hit any of the buildings, but I saw impact craters all around the village area.
The QB map we played on was the one containing 2 village objective areas. A river seperated the two areas and there were rather large hills. The village I was hitting was the center objective.
-
I've noticed that there is a lot less "splash" damage with artillery compared to CM1. I was playing one match where I pre-plotted a 240m radius area that contained a village using 2 american 240mm artillery guns that pounded the area for 15 minutes using the "medium" intensity setting. When I then assaulted the position my opponents infantry platoon was virtually unscathed within the buildings. Even exposed units in close proximity of the blast survived the impact (about 10 meters from the crater)
During the same barrage one of the explosions wounded a mortar team that was 320 meters away from the impact area. (We confirmed that no other unit shot the mortar team and the casualty had to come from the arty shell)
So I guess I don't understand how the damage is calculated. Angle of impact determines the path of the shrapnel?
-
On night missions I have to turn my desktop gamma all the way up or I can't see anything.
-
I've been playing 1-2 multiplayer games a day since release and I don't know if it's just bad luck, but I've seen Bazookas and Schreck's miss stationary tanks at 100-150 meter range quite frequently. This is using highly motivated veteran schreck teams that are unsurpressed and not spotted by the enemy.
In my games so far I've only run into 3 kills by a zook/schreck team (again, all multiplayer). What have your experiences been?
I miss the % chance to hit indicator from CM1.
-
And you are an expert on marketing knowledge?
No I'm not. I do know about Network Engineering.
When I bought the game no one asked me if I was going to play Multiplayer, and what modes I would use. I have not heard of anyone else post that they were received any kind of survey asking them about that either. Hence the only possible way of Battlefront knowing how many players use multiplayer is by means of IT. And that will be easy enough to test with a packet sniffer.
-
Steve told many times that he knows that this is so.
The only way to my knowledge how this could be possible is if CM would send that information to a battlefront server everytime someone initiated a multiplayer session. If this is the case, then yes, they have good data.
-
It is not fatally flawed for many, it is fatally flawed for very few.
The majority of CM players play SP. the minority play MP.
In the MP minority, the vast majority play WEGO PBEM, a small minority play tcp/ip.
No one over the past 4 years has raised the lack of tci/ip wego has being more than a minor irritant. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the lack of "cherry picking" of units in QBs was a "national crisis" which is why CMBN will come with a brand new QB system.
Everyone here, including BFC, knows the tcp/ip wego "crisis" will fade away, like snow in july, in a few weeks.
Do you have numbers to back this up? Does Battlefront have numbers to back up their usage statistics? How can they tell who is playing multiplayer?
-
What Kwazydog said.
I can appreciate that the people who want TCP/IP WE-GO have a favorite mode of play just like everyone else. But count me among those who are confused how and why PBEM is an inadequate substitute.
Yes, it's slower. But how much slower? If the opposing players have the time blocked out for TCP/IP (as they must) don't you essentially have what you're asking for right now? With broadband and file-sharing technologies, what's the level of inconvenience with PBEM?
Answer: Simultaneous Turns! While I'm working on doing my turn, my opponent is working on his. If we play via PBEM one of us is always waiting on the other player. This not only makes the game last a lot longer but is actually boring for the player that's waiting for the other player to finish their turn!
-
Put up an official poll - ask how important TCP/IP WEGO is for your user base compared to things like moveable waypoints, flamethrowers, etc. I think there is more interest in multiplayer than you may think.
-
Patience on all sides would probably be a very good thing. Titling a thread "BF you blew it" is sure to incite a reaction and probably blew from the start any ability to have a calm reasonable discussion unfortunately.
You know - I tried that a few days ago in a thread titled "Multiplayer Issues" (or similar) and i had 3-4 responses to basically the same issue. Chances are Battlefront didn't even see it. There's a much better chance getting attention using a controverisal title.
-
Was the decision not to add a pause feature in RT play a technical one or by design?
If it is game engine related, then that's a huge oversight when programming it. If it's by design, then that's rather arrogant.
I would respectfully request an update on Battlefront's road map in regrads to multiplayer.
-
I'm going to have to agree here. I play Multiplayer most of the time, and managing real time without pause makes it non-enjoyable.
Short term fix: Please enable a pause option
Long term: TCPIP WEGO!
-
<Disclaimer - I bought but didn't really play Shock Force>
Am I missing something, or is it really not possible to pause the game in multiplayer while using real time mode? This is crucial - wives, pets, all kinds of hazzards!
Is TCP/IP WEGO still on the table for future implementation?
Other than that my first Real Time multiplayer game was rock solid, but when you are dealing with a company + worth of units it really is too difficult to manage - I'm really missing TCP/IP WEGO.
-
Long story short, I play only multiplayer CM against friends, but we want more out of the game than just tactical battles. So with the original CM we tried using tools like "Aide de Camp" to help us manage the operational layer. Is there any game that has the option of not calculating combat when 2 enemy unit formations meet? We would then play the game in CM, and update the operational game with the leftover combat strengths.
Thanks,
Tom
-
I want to know if you can play against eachother using the Strategic overlay?
-
I read through some of the previews and I seemed like 2 vs 2 was supported? Or 2 vs the AI?
Thanks!
-
I tried area targeting using the Mk19, it would not fire. Direct targeting did not work either. And yes I had good LOS and no crew casulaties.
-
I used to buy Battlefront products without trying a demo first, knowing that they would deliver. I can't do this anymore. First TOW, which I could forgive since it was not developed in house, and now the flag ship product CMSF.
I do enjoy the real time aspect of the game. But the fun dissipates quickly when I start having to micromanage my unit movements due to bad pathing, so in the end it's a battle vs pathing not against my opponent.
Why was area fire abstracted? It was great in the CM1 series.
Why are there no minimum firing ranges indicated for missles? CM1 had this for onboard mortars.
1:1 representation was a bad desgign decision if LOS is still abstracted.
Like many I'm disappointed with CMSF. And being told that "I just don't get it" is odd. I know what fun is, and CMSF in its currently implementation is not fun for me.
[ August 11, 2007, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TBlaster ]
-
I want modern Russian equipment in there. BMP3's, T80's, and T90's.
[ August 07, 2007, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: TBlaster ]
-
Confirmed, I have the same issues with my friend in multiplayer.
My system: Dell XPS3 P4 3.4, ATI X800SE, WinXP
-
I didn't know there was a minimum range on the AT-3 of 500 meters. That would explain it. I guess the question to ask now is why am I not being told that information ingame? CM1 had this information. Am I expected to be a military expert and know all weapon ranges and capabilities in order to play this game?
This is a fairly fundamental feature, BTS, please fix!
-
BRDM 2's ATGM will not engage a Stryker. I tried firimg arc first, then manually targeting the stryker, but they won't engage. I haven't tried having them engage any other vehicle type yet.
-
I was surprised to see the BMP2's 30mm be so ineffective against Bradley's. At least in the games I played I see 30mm rounds bounce off Bradley armor even at point blank range. Is the main gun of a BMP1 a bigger threat to a Bradley than the 30mm of the BMP2? Is the Bradley armor really that effective against 30mm rounds?
I know - all do.
Need Help with Finding an Operational Layer
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Thanks SLIM - VASSAL will work for us. I tried it last night and loaded the Ardenne 44 module - perfect for us. My friend who I play with is a programmer, if he does decide to make Unity based version of an operational layer I'll let you know.