Priest
-
Posts
1,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Priest
-
-
Right, and I suggest to you that you play a CMMC game to play against good players, or maybe go to the PENG thread because while there are good players on a ladder, they are by no means the only source of good players. In fact lets take an example.Originally posted by Schoerner:Before talking such BS, i suggest to subscribe to a ladder and to play against good players.
IIRC Swamp was a well respected ladder player. Given a fairly static arena (read map) and no historic restrictions he would be hard pressed to actually lose a battle. I believe he like hordes of M8 Howitzer Carriages.
Now lets take a more "realistic" standard CMMC game (In my opinion the polar opposite of a ladder game) and put Swamp there. He would still be a fine player no doubt but he would probably not be as comfortable. Or maybe he would as I cannot speak for him, using him more as an example (so Swamp no ill will buddy:) )
Basically no matter how you play, ladder or fun or CMMC, if you cannot adapt, if you cannot plan on the fly, if you cannot win without totally proper conditions, and if you base your entire battle on the fact your KT or Brumbar can move then well you might as well pick up StarCraft.
You see we understand were you are coming from, it is not that "deep" of a point. What you are not getting is that so far as I can tell a great majority of us could a.) care less and b.) actually consider almost like a feature.
Lastly, take your anger somewhere else, only a child needs it to be put on display in public for attention. BooHoo your tanks might bog, hmm if they do oh well, just play another game when this one is done. You see unlike real war you can always fight again.
-
Okay so let me get this straight.
1.) You are complaining that you cannot see something that your opponent cannot see (ground condition)
2.) You also bring up the fact that you do not get the weather conditions also, but as already stated they do not determine (only influence) the ground conditions. As proof I have played in more than one game that was rainy but with dry ground. Some thread way way way (did I mention way) back in the day said this is possible because it simulates an area where it has just started raining or something to the effect.
3.) You say that this is important because you play "competitively" on a ladder and that force and game balance are important, hmm okay, but since you play on a ladder then I would assume you have rules (like no rain or night games) that would alleviate this. Also if someone does cheat you cannot only ignore them but you kick them off the ladder.
Seems to me that since you can kick someone off of a ladder and can more easily identify a trend (due to the multiple player experiences on the ladder) you are actually in a better situation than the rest of us, who btw are not complaining.
More importantly I think you brought most of the thrashing on yourself by the way you approached the issue. Demands and whining tend to not get you very far.
One last thing to think about, say you are playing a rather "cheeky" player. He intentionally chooses rainy and then goes and buys all kinds of light tanks and/or chooses tanks based on ground pressure instead of anything else. You "unknowingly" choose your standard allotment of Brumbars and Tigers and even JadgTigers. Oh no the cheater got you! Oh but wait the ground conditions are dry, time to mop the floor with your opponent.
Because the way that MP works is that your will find out the ground condition before you opponent. Oh well to each his own, but puh-lease lighten up it is a.) only a game and b.) more of a challenge to actually play with adversity if you are up to it.
-
Uhm as have many here I have played a huge amount of battles (QB) in CMBO and CMBB.
This has never been an issue. First off it is realistic, second off never even noticed that ground conditions was not on the setup email to begin with (almost never look at it) and the reason I never look at it is because I play with people I trust. If you cannot bother to trust your opponent to even choose a QB condition then you best not play them.
Also if you do not pick ground condition (game not in front of me as I am at work) and it is randomly selected on the field then the opponent has zero advantage over you because he has to select forces and send you an email before you can see the ground conditions, which in fact you see first before he does (you get to setup after force selection IIRC). So if he/she wants to change ground conditions they would have to magically select forces for you and setup for you.
So uhm what are you complaining about?
-
YESS! I want the female-partisan-mod combined with Victoria's Secret's spring time camo mod!Originally posted by ParaBellum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wilhammer:
When is this Victoria Secrets Mod coming out?
*sigh*</font>
-
Whoa, musta been kinda wierd turning back around and playing CMBO with your wife dressed like that huh!Originally posted by Panzertruppe:I heard my wife come up behind while playing CMBO after I had downloaded a new camo-pack and I said "what do you think of this cool looking camo on this tank" She didn't respond right away.....I turned around and noticed she had a new "Victoria Secret" item on! ah.........kinda ruined the moment. :eek:
And artichokes smell really bad when all the water is gone and they continue to cook.....thanks to CMBO also!
-
Thanks Ed. And in answer to your earlier post I am doing great, just recieved a nice new big promotion!
-
Going for a flank shot? Sounds like a good time to us AP and not the valuable HC. Then you pop out and meet one head on (think that is what you meant) and you fire fast with whatever is loaded which just happened to be AP.
Good?
-
Geez Ed you might make me have to start using tree bases again.
-
Juju...I...know that this...well this might just sound...well wierd...but you have to understand...you just have too...I...well there is no easy way...I...oh I will just say it...I think I love you man!
-
Religon, no.
Tired of same question over and over again yes.
The whole cost of licensing will prevent BFC from ever doing this, due to that cost going up not down. Of course that is bringing reality into it again.
As far as getting out of my house and doing more than playing CM games, well I might get kicked out of this so called CM religon but I have not played CMBB in almost two weeks if not longer, been busy with other stuff.
Just an FYI.
-
It is a company whose goal is to make quality games, make money while doing it and do all this without selling out to the system.
Read the manifesto.
The XBOX just is a computer, you are right, and in two years it will just be an old computer, are you suggesting that they limit themselves in this way?
And the title says CMBB, I was responding to the entire thread.
You thoughts have no basis and they have been discussed before and shot down before. This has all been said before, laughed at before, and rejected before.
-
Was it? Was it more offensive than "Good plan. I second this motion. I think that BFC should, whilst they're doing this, spend some time snowboarding in hell.Originally posted by SuperSulo:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
Wow. That was needlessly offensive.
"? In that case I apologize, I was aiming for slightly less, so things wouldn't escalate.
Ok, semantics. To you that is "change the way the game works", to me, the game stays the same, but the interface gets even better and more accessible, to more people. And that's a good thing, right? I never mentioned any full battle replay, don't put words in my mouth. Sure, I would like it for the computer version (who wouldn't?), but I don't think it would be possible on a console, with their limited resources.Originally posted by Soddball:1) Interface. All the extra options, the 'complete freedom' of viewing angles, unit roster, and (although it's not mentioned) full battle replay. That's "change the way the game works";
Total engine rewrite, sure. And that's what we will get it in CMII anyway. They could keep all the textures though. That's some 900+ MB of graphics that wouldn't have to change... That's why I objected to your claim.Originally posted by Soddball:2) Graphics: You're asking for a total engine rewrite to obtain directional lighting and light effects for guns and explosions. That's "change all the graphics".
Uhm, not in my opinion. That would be adding a complete new part to the game, the "combat system" would stay exactly as it is. The single scenarios would still be there, of course. Yes, units would gain experience in the campaign mode, just as they did in the real war. Improve strength, etc? If you mean they would gain physical strength, dexterity and such, making it into some kind of WWII RPG, that would be pushing it, that wouldn't be needed to make it a big console game. So, "combat system", ie how the battles are fought, stays the same.Originally posted by Soddball:3) Campaign mode: A complete campaign mode for campaigns against the AI would entirely change the combat system. Units would be able to gain experience, I assume, and you would be able to improve their strength, etc? That's "change the combat system".
They have already gone retail! In Europe the publisher CDV sells some of BFC's games in retail. In their first manifesto, they said they would never go retail. Enter CDV, with a very good deal, and BFC does the smart thing and takes it. That's what I ment with my reply "yes. And they already have, in a way... CDV?". The "no retail" clause is gone from the ethos. So IF an American "CDV" came along, offering to take the XBox version into retail in the US, BFC wouldn't have to "change the company ethos", they have already done the smart thing. Never say never, you never know what the future holds.Originally posted by Soddball:4) Retail: BFC haven't changed their ethos. They want to make great games that they love playing. Mass market isn't about that, it's about feeding profit margins for big business. That's "change the company ethos".
As stated above, I disagree.Originally posted by Soddball:So, yes, by and large my paraphrase was what you were saying.
Of all the things you seemed to complain about, I bet we will get most of them in the next engine of CM. Everything under "1. Graphics" besides maybe tread marks. Everything under "2. Interface". "3. Campaign mode"... hmm maybe, maybe, BFC haven't said yes or no, but I sure hope so. "4. Retail" I don't think this will happen in the US. Not for the next version, at least. I'm sure many distributors would love to get their hands on the next version, especially after TWO critically acclaimed versions (that is rare in this business), but they all probably wants a too big cut of the cake for BFC to be interested.
So, if those things do appear in the next version, you wont be buying it?
Frisky horse? So I started this "argument" by objecting to your "torpedoing"? Again, I apologize for my behavior. But I think you were firing duds, I didn't feel the explosions. I still think it could be feasible. Probably wont happen (as I said in my original post), but certainly possible.Originally posted by Soddball:Before you got on your frisky horse, I was merely torpedoing any suggestion that the idea of CM:BB on a console might be feasible. If you really want to take it personally, then do so and be damned to you.
Why did you feel the need to "torpedoing" in the first place? What is so horrible with other platforms? Not just you, I have seen a lot of name calling, ridiculing, etc, towards "other people" (console owners, FPS players, RTS players) on this forum. I think that is immature. We are not better than them, we just prefer a different type of game. In fact, it's possible to enjoy many types of games.
And yes, I did take it personally. With what you said, with the "snowboarding in hell" and the rolling eyes, it sounded as you were calling me a moron. That kinda shocked me, as I'm not used to that. Now that you explained it wasn't personal, just "torpedoing", I feel a bit better, and I wont "be damned to me".
As for my needlessly offensive first reply, I really didn't mean to be that offensive. I just didn't think you actually read all of my first post, just the "it would be great to have CM-II on the XBox", as I thought I was pretty clear in it. I suggested you read it again, sometime it helps me to go through a text a second time, especially if it's in a different language than I grew up with. Or, as it was in this case, the writer is of a different language. The "did I say that?" part came because (in my mind), you completely misunderstood what I was saying, suggesting again that you would read it one more time.
And the last part I put there just for information, I did put the disclaimer there so no one would roll their eyes at me (call me a moron), and that did fail.
I doubt anyone is still reading this, but if you are Soddball, I hope I've explained my original post and followup so there wont be any more misunderstandings. Yes, I was a bit upset when I started writing this, with your hell, rolling eyes and "damned to you". But as it takes so long for me to write, and being a mellow guy, it has passed, but I wont go up and edit, as I want you to see my original feelings, as I think YOU were needlessly offensive, not I.</font>
-
Ah the Priest respect list:
(NOTE THIS IS FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE AND IS IN NO WAY LEGALLY BINDING AS IT IS BASED ON PERSONAL OPINION AND NOT FACT)
Lets see, one star for Mr Dorosh (and that hurt to give btw
) and one big meany face for this Rob fellow. -
This stopped being amusing the last hundred times it was brought up.
So now you ask then why am I sticking my head in here? Well two reasons really.
1.) Steve plays paintball! COOL! So do I. Real rush. A might pricey once addicted but damn fun.
2.) I just played another CMBB game. I have played quite a few as you can imagine. This like many others where I was on the attack (when the situation warranted) I was able to shift my machine guns and other HWP units successfully. I have not seen this "wacky" thing everyone has been talking about. Now how have I accomplished this? Well simple first off I decide if I am going to need to move my support teams very far beyond my intitial setup area. If so then I identify the area(s) in which I want to eventually place my support weapons (after transit there). Now two really wierd things happen, first I use these things called infantry and armour to secure those areas and thus provide security for the advancing HWP teams. Next I use this thing called (doctor evil hand quote gestures) "cover" to advance those HWP troops. If I cannot expend the resources or there is not "cover" for me to move through then I am really screwed and should not move my HWP teams up. Need to find another plan.
So basically RedWolf if anything you should be asking for a map preview instead of these (IMO) non-factors that are completely related to unrealistic hopes and band aids for bad tactics.
In other words I agree with BFC and the beta testers, not sure what the hell the issue is as it has never happened to me, and as far as I can tell unless I go tromping off in the great wide open with my MG teams am I ever going to have the unlikely chance to see it.
So don't use bad tactics. Seems simple enough.
-
No need from thanks from me, I diligently do my Zombat Missionary chants every night and give them part of my life essence.
Now back to reality, THANKS CHARLES!
-
*BOWS* *BOWS*
*CHANTS*
*BOWS* *BOWS*
Once clear of the might Steves presence he proclaims in his best Mr Burns voice...
"Ten Models...EXCELLENT!"
-
If I spent the rest of my life thanking them it would not be enough...
-
Not sure what drivers I use but my card is a Nvidia Gforce 2 Ultra "Quadratrine"
Anyhow with my setup I have to force the AA to x4 (oh darn) for it to work, but once that is set there is not need to use the ESC key or anything, just wonderful beautiful graphics.
-
Hey
First off "Sturm" is not its nickname, that would be "STUG".
As for actually defeating them in an engagment, try using flanking attacks and superior numbers to thwart the Stugs. If they can sit back at long range in a nice hull down position they are deadly, don't allow them to. Push their flanks, hit them with smoke or high caliber artillery (could immobilize them which makes them useless or Gun Damage them). Make them move in bad weather conditions as they have a good chance of bogging.
You just have to be creative.
-
Could they have been re-chambered?
-
Schoener according to what you describe I can simply use COCAT and the editor to do this already and probably faster or better. Basically if I understand you right you asking for a file to input and make a battle, but you can do that in the editor. And if you do not trust your opponent have a third party set it up. What generates the situation for this battle, another operational level game? COCAT could do it if the players tracked it manually I guess. From what I see here you would also need an interface into an operational level game to read the return data or update it yourself. The first way is asking two seperate companies to come together on something (BFC currently has no games that fit that role) and the second is very unelegant and not much different that what you can already do.Originally posted by Schoerner:Unfeasible?
This should be extremely simple to implement.
Reading the content from a simple txt-file?
Internally calling the QB-generator and filling in the parameters automatically?
Choosing the units defined in a txt-file and placing somewhere on the map?
Did they answer that such an INTERFACE is unfeasible or to implement a whole strategic-component into CM?
This are two complete different things.
Not to mention that it takes away focus and Steve and BFC already said that is a bad thing.
COCAT would still need a third party to evaluate orders on retrospect.
[ November 07, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]
-
Uhm I am not saying I would not want such a system but BFC already said it is unfeasible. And Strategic Commands level of focus is about two step above CMs so that would not work. Regardless the reality of the situation is that BFC looked into to it somewhat, saw that it did not meet their goals for maintaining focus and could not be done without giving up too much.Originally posted by Schoerner:Priest, i cannot share your reservation to additional "modules".
CM's concept would in NO WAY be changed.
All that it would need to provide is an interface, capable of reading data, that describe which units should be available in the battle, building a map by using the quick battle generator but using the parameters given from the module "above" or maybe even using a predefined map.
Additional info for the briefing - which units, geographical location and time - could also be provided by the module. Even information dealing with the overall situation of the army or front and maps could be automatically delivered by the module.
After such a battle, all that CM would need to provide, is a output file, containing the losses, the units still available and the result of the battle, to be imported into the module.
And on the highest level there even could be another module, similar to StrategicCommand, dealing with the operational ressource management.
Each module could be sold seperately and whoever only wants to play tactical battles, can use CM the way he always used it.
Such an interface could be provided with quite less labour.
For the passionate tactical and strategic multiplayers, the heaven of wargaming would wait, with the other modules.
I guess such a module would sell quite well, if adequately advertised to the CM-community: CM contains only the interface, but if you want to become part of the strategic-multiplayer-community, you need the - compared to CM itself - quite simple but expensive strategic-module.
And if such a module would be to much labour for BFC, with an open standard (the interface reads non encrypted data and the data format is provided by BFC), i'm sure the community's programmers would surely make a simple strategic-module on their own and in the worst case a simple administrative-program, handling the amount of available units of both sides and the locations on the strategic map, where the CM-battles take place.
The problem that the opponents are not allowed to know the units of the other side, could be easily handled: each side only receives (from their HQ - means the strategic module) the data belonging to them, while the first player also receives the parameters for the QB-generator (or the predefined map). Then he sends the encrypted file (like in PBEM games) to the opponent and he imports his data into the game.
From there on, everything continues as usual.
To sum up, all that BFC would need to implement into CM, is an interface (like for email) capable reading and writing encrypted or unencrypted files (depending on their further plans if they want to release a strategic module on their own or not) containing which units should be present on the battlefield, the parameters for the QB-generator and when the battle is finished, writing back the results into a file.
Those are the facts that can be found directly from them. That is the reality of it. I have just accepted it and joined CMMC. Awesome experiece you should try it.
-
I would agree with Loki, Sudden Strike and the like are RTS games that use WWII as a backdrop. Similiar to how Wolfenstien does.
Other than Combat Mission (BO and BB) there are few if any real time wargames out there and almost zero that are 3D.
Not to sound arrogant but games like medal of honor, sudden strike, etc while fun, are not wargames but simply re-makes of already done ideas with a slightly different terrain.
Hope you see the difference.
-
Just trying to stop a possible forum "war".
Any how I think someone was trying to use the Operational Art of War games somehow. Some I think use a couple of board games. Search around and you should find the info.
"? In that case I apologize, I was aiming for slightly less, so things wouldn't escalate.
f...ing incomplete info on quick-battles!
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Hmmm,
You know all other things aside Schoerner that may have not been the best way to state the way to express yourself.
Personally I would back off the issue, the presentation was poor (regardless of your opinion after the fact) and once Battlefront took notice (a chance to clearly get your idea across btw) you instead use the opportunity as another chance to spout "much ado about nothing".
Steve and Charles and all of BFC have all been very open to all of our suggestions, and listened intently when presented properly. Sometimes they make changes when changes are warranted and wanted and (this is important) when they are inline with their vision of the game they made.
My guess (and this is just a guess) is that Steve and company are smart enough that in two years of building CMBB (and changing the info available at the start of a PBEM) they thought about the weather and ground conditions issue. And they made a decision on them.
Presented properly you may have had an opportunity to influence them to re-evaluate that position but alas you did not capitilize on the situation.
I personally have no issue displaying weather (heck I never look at that stuff anyway I just play) but as long as no one knows the ground conditions before force choice then what is the point. Especially since ground condition seriously plays into game balance.
If you want to have a "heavies" war go to the scenario editor, randomly generate a map and do as you please. It is almost as if you want a car to fly so to speak. If you want an exact situation to play within then use the editor, if you want to just jump into the game then choose a QB.
BTW one last example, when I play Falcon 4 or IL-2(?) and want some Instant Action (similiar to a QB) I don't get automatically a perfect optimized situation for what I want to do. I would have to use an editor for that, why do you expect different here.
Also if I want to find out what is faster, a Sherman or a T-34, I can either look it up or set up a quick test track. Now would I go to the QB generator to do this or would I go to the scenario editor. If I did go to the QB generator and it did not give me two straight parallel strips of road without any interference would I come on the board and complain? I think not.
[ January 08, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]