kgsan
-
Posts
129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kgsan
-
-
and Steve, what ever happened to the Space Lobsters game?
-
6 hours ago, Erwin said:
Yeah... That's what I do every year or two as sometimes updates do strange things. So easy. In all other issues, gamers want things yesterday. With Steam users, they seem happy to wait for weeks/months to get what BF purchasers get immediately. Weird. Plus I like that BF gets 100% of my money.
To each their own - BFC has already received 100% of my money over many years for all their WWII titles, but if I can also have the convenience of having the games on STEAM using my existing license, that is a nice quality of life improvement that is much appreciated.
Now, if they would just put out a CMX2 (or CMX3) Barbarossa game, I can die happy
-
Thanks for the info, although I bought all their WWII offerings as soon as available from BFC, I had not picked up any of their modern warfare games until they were released on STEAM, so this is my first time around with trying to get an older game I own of theirs recognized on STEAM. Hopefully they will stay true to form for CMBN.
-
So can those of us who bought CMBN years ago from BFC get a STEAM key? I bought the original release, as well as subsequent expansions and upgrades. I tried registering my game using my various BFC license keys over at Slitherine with no success. If we do qualify for the STEAM key will we get it through BFC, Slitherine, or otherwise?
Will the STEAM version just be the base game or the whole kit for CMBN?
Thanks
-
On 8/14/2021 at 12:09 PM, Battlefront.com said:
So I take it that a CM2 game covering Barbarossa is still not in the cards?
Correct. As I've said whenever this is brought up, the differences in equipment and TO&E from what we have already in the game is massive. Aside from some Soldier stuff (basic model, helmet, rifles, etc.), it would be like making a brand new game from scratch. We don't think the market will reward such a huge development expense.
Steve
Well, fair enough, you guys know your market. At least we'll always have CMBB.
(I've got my GOG version, have you thought about bringing the CM1 games to STEAM? I see you are bringing the CM2 games.)
-
Quote
Steve: We are stepping away from creating brand new Families (Base Game + Modules + Packs) and instead are committed to having at least one Module for each of our existing 8 Families. At present that means adding Modules to Black Sea, Final Blitzkrieg, and Cold War. We are also interested in adding various types of Packs to other Families.
So I take it that a CM2 game covering Barbarossa is still not in the cards?
-
The recent thread on a forum member from long ago brought another question to mind. Where did Madmatt go? The other forum member's expulsion was quite the news item at the time, but I don't recall ever hearing anything regarding Madmatt. I think he started out as a frequent forum poster and modder who later joined the BFC team making sounds and then at some point he just disappeared. He isn't still making the sounds for Battlefront is he?
-
My quick take...
I don't think either side was in the mood to be the attacker . . . .
Well, also in 1945-1946 the US had the A-bomb and no other country did. It's hard to imagine that the Soviet Union under Stalin would not have sought to dominate Western Europe pretty quickly, without at least the implicit threat of American nuclear weapons to deter them.
-
Ultimately we will have an ingame control which allows people to toggle on/off various types of sounds. Ideally you would be able to set the volume balance, but I don't think we'll get to that any time soon.
I'm going to try and push for a quick and dirty toggle in the Prefs file for now because the ultimate solution is definitely going to take some time.
Steve
Nice to hear, thanks guys.
-
A way to turn of the music and ambient sounds would be great. I thought ambient sounds could be toggled in CMx1 and back then if you didn't like the music you could just pull or replace the music file (is there an easy way to do the latter in CMx2?).
-
I'm not sure about that article. They mostly asked him what BFC wasn't going to do. "Destraex: Are going to be shipping chocolate frosted cupcakes with each CD you sell? Steve: No, we haven't considered that for this release."
I was rather struck by that too. Not to be too cynical, but is the Wargamer perhaps owned by a competitor of BFC's?
-
. . . I was under the impression this whole time that we HAD to upgrade to 2.0 once Market Garden comes out. But now that is not the case?
So there will be a CMBN: Market Garden 2.0 and also a CMBN Market Garden 1.11?
Gunnersman, Somewhere in all the posting I think BFC has said definitively that you will not be able to use an expansion without purschasing the CM:BN upgrade. I think all that Steve is saying now is that you won't have to buy the upgrade twice if you upgrade CM:BN at the 1st opportunity. If you upgrade when it's first available (and before the new module is out) you pay $10. You can then buy the module alone. The alternative is to wait to upgrade until the module comes out and save $5 by getting them together.
-
You'll need to purchase the upgrade for each title.
I can answer number two as well. They are doing 4 East Front titles. One for each year of the war...plus appropriate modules. If you judge by CMSF's content and CMBN projected content that will be 4 titles and 12 modules.
Mord.
Thanks Mord, I appreciate the response, although I'm a bit puzzled by the necessity for customers who want the 2nd CM:BN module to purchase both an upgrade and the module, if I'm understanding you correctly. It would make a lot more sense to me for BFC to include the upgrade with the later module (with an option to by a stand alone upgrade for those who don't want to shell out the full price for a module they aren't interested in, but who still want the latest and greatest version of the CM:BN base game).
I'm a great fan of the CMx1 family and I certainly don't begrudge them trying to extract a higher return for their work. I probaby got more game play value out of the original CM series than any other game I've ever owned. Nonetheless, the new plan sounds like they may be slicing the salami a bit thin (to resurrect an old metaphor). I suppose the test will be in the pricing and content offered with the new scheme, but even best case on value, it does seem like it's going to lead to an awful lot of fragmentation, with various base games, modules, packs and upgrades. Time will tell.
-
. . .
A few months after the new game releases, owners of previous Combat Mission games can purchase Upgrades to add those features to CM products they already own. The delayed availability is necessary to ensure that our small team has enough time to ensure quality control (especially backwards compatibility) before releasing them.
. . .
The next module in the CM:BN family (more about this in the coming days) will already be featuring CMx2 v2.0, and will *require* that upgrade.
Questions?
Moon, just to clarify, if a customer owns a pevious CM game (i.e. CM:BN) and also purchases the stand-alone new game version (CM:FI), with the latest and greatest CM version, will they still need to seperately purchase the prior game (CM:BN) upgrade if they want the new features for their old CM game, or is that included along with the new game purchase?
Glad to hear of all the items in the pipe line. Does an early-war ('41-'42) East Front CM game also lie in BFC's future? Personally that's the portion of the East Front I'm much more interested in, although it certainly makes sense for BFC to try to first maximize its use of the late war units and art which it's already put the work into developing.
-
Small company; can't afford a dedicated PR team. Those are the breaks.
Michael
Well Steve used to be a pretty impressive one-man PR team, of a sort. He seemed to be around at all hours on th eforums anyway, dispensing opinions and info and responding to questions and criticisms, although he was never adverse to taking issue with customers he disagreed with. The few times I’ve looked in on the forums of late, I don't recall seeing any posts by him. Surely he is still with BFC? I hope the New Hampshire, or was it Vermont, winters haven't gotten the better of him;)
-
. . . .
I'll float this by Charles and see what he thinks. I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. I do know, however, that we have a lot of things on our ToDo List and I don't expect this will be put right up at the top. At least not right away.
Steve
Thanks for considering guys. I suppose with time and studying the editor one will eventually reach a point of familiarity where reading the terrain types may be second nature, but it would be nice to get this type of feedback upfront, if it's not too difficult/time consuming.
-
. . .
If someone thinks this can be presented in a useable numerical format... they're nuts
So let's please, please, please take any notion of numbers being a) possible or
practical or even c) useful right off the table. It's simply not possible. Period. Wasn't even possible for CMx1, and that was a vastly more simplistic.Steve
No quibble with regards to request for such numbers being provided; however, I'm not sure that most the folks in this thread were asking for precise quantification of concealment/cover factors for every pixel on the map I took it that the main thrust was for some very basic information such as: is this low bocage, mud, open terrain, light trees, etc., that would be reflected by the targeting cursor. It may be that such a feature isn't deemed worth the effort, but it is not the same thing as a bunch of number crunchers demanding exact quantification on every input in the game.
-
A simple request to be able to mouse over terrain and have the terrain type disclosed, seems pretty straight forward. To a non-programer it seems like this would probably not take too much effort to add to the target tool, but maybe not. Even if it's not too difficult, BFC may feel that it's not worth the effort. Fair enough. But why some feel the need to lecture those who might find such a tool useful is a bit hard to fathom.
-
It's a feature which has been requested since the days of the original CMBO and it would be a great feature (at least for those of us who play WEGO, at least in part, so we can watch the action from all over the battlefield) . BFC in the past was open to the idea but either because it has turned out to be impractical, or simply a lower priority, it hasn't materialized. Perhaps the implementation of an RTS play option has made the implementation full game replay more problematic. If you search in the old CMX1 and CMx2 Shockforce archives you'll find plenty of discussions on this.
-
I appreciate BFC posting the manual, so I'm not complaining; however, the online viewer seems a bit sub-optimal. I see how to zoom in on one page in the manual viewer, but is there any way to view two pages side by side when zoomed in, or else at least to flip forward or back a page while staying in the zoomed in mode? Again, not a "fix or somefink" complaint to BFC, but I was wondering if there is a better way to view the online manual than I've figured out so far.
-
CM: Normandy . . . .
What we are striving VERY hard to do is to ensure that people who are reasonably OK with the CMx2 game engine will be happy with its initial portrayal of WW2. This includes not only the setting and the gameplay, but also some promised features like "cherry picking" for QBs. We're very pleased with the setting and general gameplay's existing state in terms of satisfying those goals, so polishing them will only make them better. As for those features, like QBs, we're very sure we have that fixed up just fine . . . .
My apologies if this has aleady been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know if the QBs in CM:Normandy will have the option for randomly generated maps as in CMx1?
-
Unfortunately I don't think this is a universal fix, at least with CMBB and CMAK. (To be honest, I haven't played CMBO since CMBB came out.) I've tried adjusting universal settings as well as individual application profiles without any improvement. The uber clunky movement remains, although FWIW I don't have an 8800, my set up is:Originally posted by Commander Z:I have got it to work yesterday!
I have added a new application profile for CM 2 in the Nvidia control panel. There i set almost every feature to the highest quality.
But with this settings scrolling and camera control is a little bit slow. The next time i will try to decrease the quality setting a little bit. Hope, there ist a compromise of a WORKING CM2, quality and interface performance.
A desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit.
-
I've CMAK installed on the computer that I'm writing this on. The video card is an 8800GTX w/WinXP and 162.18 drivers. The game runs fine here, with AA.Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kgsan:
I certainly understand the above point, but is there any chance that BFC would consider a fix for what is preventing CMBB and CMAK from running properly with the new Nvidia cards? I realize these are old games and certainly BFC has no obligation to maintain them at this late date. However, for old fans who would very much like to keep playing them until CMx2 WWII is released (2008-2009?) it would be a godsend.
PoE [/QB]</font>
-
Steve,Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I can't say this strongly enough or frequently enough, apparently, becuase you guys just don't seem to get it. CMx1 is dead and will not be brought back to life. Please, just let it go... you're wasting your time.
Steve
I certainly understand the above point, but is there any chance that BFC would consider a fix for what is preventing CMBB and CMAK from running properly with the new Nvidia cards? I realize these are old games and certainly BFC has no obligation to maintain them at this late date. However, for old fans who would very much like to keep playing them until CMx2 WWII is released (2008-2009?) it would be a godsend.
[ August 20, 2007, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]
practical or even c) useful right off the table. It's simply not possible. Period. Wasn't even possible for CMx1, and that was a vastly more simplistic.
CMBN STEAM key
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Looks like BFC confirmed the above responses, thanks to all: