phil stanbridge
-
Posts
2,431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by phil stanbridge
-
-
I guess they're carrying a lot less, too. Soviet infantrymen weren't weighed down with 40 pounds of armor. If I were lugging an extra forty pounds around I'd probably tire faster too.
Good point! That didn't even enter my head, sorry!
-
I've just had some major success with the BLAST command (engineers) which is slightly related. The enemy forces were totally shocked - and I steam rolled the lot. One squad took out over 40 men this way, moving from building to building. Maybe the ASSAULT command needs added suppression to work effectively?
-
I'll be totally honest when SF was released I was pretty disappointed. I prefer WWII, and I was still playing CMBB/CMAK daily. It didn't really address any of my needs at the time. I tried it a couple of times and couldn't get into it. I found it buggy and very unstable. I shelved the demo, gave up on the forum and went into a deep depression.
I came back to the game 3 years later. I LOVED it. I don't know what happened - but a lot of the major issues I had were fixed, it was *more* stable (but not 100% hehe). I think the modules added a new element to the game for me. It was more topical. It looked and sounded better. Everything had improved.
I now own all the modules, have just bought NATO and am slowly getting into Afghanistan. Just in time to be majorly disappointed with Normandy
(Hopefully not!) -
Has anyone noticed how hardy these guys are when running? They don't tire as quickly as the guys in the desert - now that's probably accurate, but I'd like some confirmation on that. You can fast move these chaps up hills and they don't tire! It makes for a better experience IMHO, as the guys in SF tire at a ridiculous rate in comparison.
-
I'll just add to this thread although you already know about the problems associated with calling in artillery and the never-ending delay when adjusting. Plus occassional rounds go missing playing WEGO.
-
I've turned the texture details down one notch in game and haven't had a crash since (touch wood) but as Gothmog says, it's not ideal.
-
lol sounds like a bug?
-
Yep I've had this as well, sometimes the barrage never arrives after you adjust it.
Also and I don't know if I'm just imagining this but often I hear the sound of the incoming rounds in the last seconds of a turn but never see any impacts during the next turn.
Absolutely spot on. This happens playing WEGO obviously. Rounds sound like they are arriving, next turn, rounds either nowhere to be seen or rounds arrive much later.
-
When adjusting artillery the timer sometimes 'sticks' and won't adjust. Happened to me a few times now.
-
Will the campaigns focus on a particular (aka, core) unit like in CMSF?
If I recall I think they said it would yes.
-
Aside from these very subtle changes I find it hard to tell much difference in "feel." But, then I played a lot of Red side CMSF. So, it seems all very familiar. I wonder if most players never played the Red side before CM:Afghanistan.
Interesting point. I rarely play red in SF because I like the blue toys too much. But what I have found is that Afghanistan 'feels' so much more intense to me - it's close infantry combat rather than a multitude of one-hit kills at distance. It doesn't feel quite as one-sided either. Even though the Soviets have plenty of AFVs it seems to be much more an infantry battle with support elements rather than free-ranging tank warfare.
-
If you see my CM Afghan post I've got rangefinders on the brain right now.
Is CM:N going to simulate the various german optics that were available as it did in CMx1?
God I would imagine so! I don't think BFC would leave something out as important as this.
-
I've spent a little time with Afghanistan now and I'm really liking it - it has a totally different feel to it, although many things remain familiar which is good from the customers point of view.
The best part of this however is the fact we may, dare I say 'potentially', see these improvements in NATO and then Normandy. What things have you guys noticed? Some things are really subtle. Little things I've seen so far:-
Artillery - the delivery/delay function now works so finally you can see how long it will be until your requested bombardment flies out of the sky
Artillery/Air support have General/Personnel options for ordnance to stop them wasting it on the wrong targets.
Ability to split teams further down than in SF.
The graphics are a mixed bag in my opinion - what's your take on them? The terrain looks washed out, and doesn't look as colourful as you'd expect. I wish this could be addressed in some shape or form even by modders. Sound effects were quite bad too (again my opinion) and nothing that a few good mods wont sort.
But overall lots of positive improvements which is what I like to see!
-
STATS yip, completely miss them too
When you say it takes a bit of practice, what takes practice ? maybe i a missing the concept but when i did play CM:SF (for a couple of months after first release) there just didnt appear to be much depth. Not enough options for me , felt like i needed more control. This is coming from someone that has loved BF products since CM:BO and understanding the depth BF put in to there products , sorry to say CM:SF put me of the brand for a bit
.... hopefully CM:N will bring back that initial excitement. No offence intended BF , all about personal opinions and perception.The more you immerse yourself in the game, the more realistic it becomes. This can be said about any game to a degree, but it works particularly well with SF. When I said practice, I simply meant practice makes perfect. SF is a difficult game on several layers. It took me the best part of 3 years to really absorb it and get into it. Now I find that I'm loving it more and more. Lots of things really help, like the 1:1 representation, and the new engine. Even the simplicity of adding mods. But the depth is there, you just need to give it a chance.
The initial problem for me was the bugs - there were lots. It also ran like a paraplegic dog on heat. Then there was the theatre which did nothing for me. For whatever reason I went back to it after a couple of years, and started to see the improvements. But I'm not kidding when I said years. There have been several patches along the way and it's now running more or less as you'd expect. I always remember SF being reviewed by a couple of gaming sites when it first came out. I wus gutted! If I recall correctly it was hung drawn and quartered. There was obviously a complete lack of understanding by the reviewers, but there were also the bugs to contend with. I bet if SF was reviewed today, with all the modules, it would do so much better. A game like this takes time to mature. Also I think it's more topical.
But I get what you say about the 'lack of control'. I think it's more the fact that modern weapons are somewhat automated compared to their counterparts in WWII. For example, the Challenger can one shot kill, almost every time, and there's very little input required from you the player. I understand that - but the challenges are still there. Weapons become 'smarter' and the game becomes harder. Have you ran into many ATGMs for example? They are a nightmare in SF. Really tricky little buggers, and there was nothing like in in WWII. So you need to 're-learn' the game to get the most out of it. The depth is there for sure. Try the campaigns over the single missions if you want immersion - as they offer so much more depth.
-
I miss the statistics of old in CMBO/CMBB and CMAK with the kill count and who got what. I really miss that a lot actually. I found it quite helpful in a gamey type of way.
But to Scottie, SF is leaps and bounds above that. You really need to give it another go. It took me the best part of 3 years to get into it and now I wouldn't go back to the other games. Just waiting on NATO and then the biggie, Normandy to keep me quiet for a while. It does take quite a bit of practice to get it right, but when it falls into place, you realise it's a better game. I am still trying to get my mate in SF, but if it took me 3 years. Well, you get my point.
Theatre of War is a good laugh when you fancy ten minutes away from SF
I've got 2 and 3 sitting here. Some of TOWs little features are quite nice, but they definitely do not fit in the scope of these games. -
I'll give it a shot then! Thanks.
-
Carrying experience forward in one battle to the next is not exactly realistic in my opinion anyway. Have you tried the campaigns at all in SF? They are semi dynamic (read less linear) in nature and can vary depending on which route you choose and how well you play. It's still nothing along the lines of what CMC intended, but it's a step in the right direction.
-
I'm not going to touch the campaigns until a patch is forthcoming to be honest. I believe there's a few little odds and sods that are going to be addressed reading some of these threads. I'm enjoying the single missions for now.
-
SPOILERS:
I'm on the same mission right now - it's quite a challenge not to lose at least some armour. I think the best way to deal with those T90s is to leave your armour on the road, facing. Do not hide as this will effect their spotting ability. Get the Bradleys round to assist as soon as possible and let them use their TOWs. Also use your Humvees where possible, but keep them well back. Get infantry dismounted and in the wooded areas right in the front line, and let them slog it out. Watch out for the ATGM that are hiding in the long grasses. Use your heli support with area/heavy. Hope for the best. I've won this mission twice, but this time I am fairing far worse for some reason. It should only take two minutes max to knock out the counter attack but if for some reason your armour misses the T90s then you are potentially in trouble. I've had all three of my tanks go for the same target which is annoying.
I would say that HQ units DO have some bearing on target info in my experience anyway.
-
Im having the same flashing light (night battles) with my Nividia drivers at the moment that others have been having so im just hoping that is sorted before worrying about the graphics on release...
It won't be sorted I'm afraid
Strictly speaking it's not a BFC problem, it's an Nvidia/ATI one. Something to do with the Open GL routine. Either Nvidia/ATI pull their fingers out and fix their drivers, or BFC start to use DirectX instead of Open GL. Maybe the latter will happen, but not for some years I doubt. Only option for us is to stick with it, or use an older card; which will support older drivers. I use a new 460GTX so I'm stuffed! -
We will make two medium sized campaigns; one American and one German. This is similar to the concept of three Campaigns being shipped with NATO.
Steve
That is fab news, and more than I expected. A German campaign will be excellent. I don't know about anyone else, but I always found myself veering to the German side in QB's and scenarios because I loved their heavy cats. More fun to play if you know what I mean (rather than the countless Sherman M4's lining up ready to be hit by Panzerfaust and 75mm)
Having said that, I really want to be able to use naval artillery again! Also looking forward to using VT but I'm guessing that will appear in the later modules. Best of both worlds either way, and offering two campaigns will appeal to the masses. -
I did wonder why Canadians were fighting on the eastern front
But I thought it might have been a western front mod for CMBB (which I think exists in some shape or form!). -
Agree with the above however let's not forget that screenshot you are using there is a seriously modified CMBB. I'm sure CMN will eventually be heavily modified also, although things like shader and lighting and stuff like that do pose some serious technical problems especially with the current revision of ATI and Nvidia drivers and there is no way modders' can resolve that. In some ways it's two steps forward and one step back. That's progress for ya!
-
I absolutely adore campaigns. To me, it is what Combat Mission is all about. Don't get me wrong, I like single scenarios too, but the campaigns have so much more about them. It means so much more to complete one too, (I've completed 6 SF campaigns now). Keeping an eye on your troops and vehicles is even more important. I like the semi dynamic nature of the campaign too.
(Hopefully not!)
How is CM:SF regarded?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Definitely mate. NATO should improve SF by some margin if you consider the gap between SF and Afghanistan.