Jump to content

Pascal DI FOLCO

Members
  • Posts

    1,024
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pascal DI FOLCO

  1. The problem is that nearly nowhere in Normandy you get 2 km fire range ...That's not like the Russian steppes !!
  2. I think you hit on perhaps the reason more than anything else. I know it probably isn't believed on this board but reading everything BFC posts they believe that they are on a far superior game with CMx2. They have said a couple times that money matters to them, but if money really mattered they would be in a different industry. They won't touch CMBB because to them it takes time for a product that, while once great, is inferior to what they will have to offer. </font>
  3. Thanks for the explanations, indeed I was off For 3 : well, the defensive smoke makes sense in this case to isolate enemy fore troops, but beware of putting it very near of the overwatching troops, lest them else advance themselves under cover ! Q4 : for 1000 pt you get only 9 (big) squads, and 6 Pak are not often that useful. A good choice if facing a T34 rush, but else you may be better off with a PzGr Kp, only costs 600 pts, has a good firepower with LMGx2 squads also, 4 MGs, and 4 Schrecks. OTOH a simple Fusilier Bn is only 1300 pts, has 27 squads, 10 MG and even 2 Mtr spotters - but lacks AT punch.
  4. Hi Dan I didn't play the "olde" tabletop game, and tried the computer version - I was not overly impressed, and found luck was too much of a factor. I've read the "new game" AAR, it seems to have addressed many "luck" issues: "free" maneuver w/o cards, no more "wingmen" (they had just a couple cards, so their life ended up with the luck of the small draw), new system for firing bursts... Unless I'm mistaken, the comp game still has the "old" rules mostly. Any chance to upgrade with the new system one day ? That would be cool.
  5. Aren't the guys setting up the IG after having dismounted it from the cart ? Re IG usage, I also most often use them directly on buildings. But the 75 is pretty weak, the 150 is more fun and can really screw the enemy if you find a good spot 500m or so from enemy infantry!
  6. Hi Sebastien, Some answers 1. Best use for HQ is to have them command the squads - ie have them "in command" (red line to the units), which give them bonuses according to the HQ abilities (ie Combat+1 etc.). They should stay somewhere behind, in cover, and can then rally panicked or routing units. HQ don't have much firepower and are costly, so aren't very effective in battle. 2. The PzIV is afraid of being brewed up, so it spouts smoke and backup ! The 100mm gun easily tears the Panzer apart, and the Pz' 75 gun has not a big chance (even more like 0...) to get through the SU-100 armor from front. Try flanking it, as it's a non turreted AFV. 3. What's a good tactic with smoke is to blind the defenders to allow your attacking units to get close, where they'll put to advantage their usually superior firepower. But I don't see the point of putting smoke between your advancing squads and their overwatching units - it let the point units unsupported while moving, a serious problem ! 4. Not sure about what's your question - you mean a SturmKompanie has not enough MGs ? Sure, they're not supposed to do long range fighting, but blast enemies defensive positions from close. "So many targets" ? You mean the SK have many small squads (6-7 men) ? That's rather an advantage, as you have more teams to maneuver or fire. Think of it has being "free" half squads of a 13-men squad, without the penalties. And note that more targets means enemy firepower will have to be split, and overall be less effective. Hope it helps !
  7. Just a "thank you" for this courageous and honest commercial approach. I was pondering if I'd buy (at last !) TacOps4, reading this sold it to me ! Salute, Major !
  8. Yes, Gefechtsaufklärung is a great scen, and a classic, kudos Andreas ! (only problem is that it's impossible to write/spell properly by a non-German lol!). Iron Roadblock is quite fun also, but I never managed to win and gave up in frustration after having my 88 just 2 m short of having a LOS ! BTW, those 2 scenarios are taken as training examples in the last part of the CMBB strategy guide.
  9. Ok, give the guys the code, let's see what it gives ! I'm sure Charles codes like a champ (FC2 still works on XP !), and afaik CMx1 is coded in C, coders everywhere were milked with it. As far as development goes, aThis won't be worse than with CMC...
  10. Why that ? Licensing a couple guys to kill bugs, make some additions, review some graphics, and -let's be dreamers!- create a new theatre (W Europe 39-40 won't be very hard) maybe won't give much cash to BFC, but NOT doing it (at all) nets them 0.00 certainly. It won't even compete for the upcoming CMx2 WW2 - at least not much more than Close Combat can compete with CoH, and even then competition will be all to BFC advantage ! SSI did licence commercially/selectively the SP engine nearly 10 years ago, we still play with it...
  11. @Kellyheroes, you forgot Talonsoft Campaign Series- total coverage of the war at platoon level. @Tom Norton (and BFC !) Money-wise I really wonder if there's not much more money to make by upgrading/expanding on CMx1 than developing for 4yrs+ an entire new, complex engine with a target audience that I can't yet define. I don't buy the "developers have to make new things to attract customers" rant : look at what HPS does since 10 years, and now Matrix is just porting old wargames to XP/hi-res. I don't buy HPS anymore (fed up with it since some times, but I bought 20 or so before), but I did buy the "new" CC:CoI, Campaign Series, and TOAW3. So the lamentations about "there's no customers" has its limits - ie there's still a rather "rich" core wargamer niche ready to spend money on wargames. But those guys want historicity, "simulated" realism, gameplay, not especially fancy graphics, and tracking of every 7.62mm bullet to see if it hits an arm, a leg, or a tree branch (play OFP/ArmA if you want that). OTOH wanting to attract the "twitch crowd", gamers from 13 to 20, with anything wargame-like is just illusionary - like trying to sell Kant books to them ! I did buy ToW but would like to resell it, and won't buy CM:SF, nor its expansions. Don't like SC2 neither, and not even sure I'd buy the future Normandy game, the setting (1 month 1/2 on stg like 5000 km²) is too limited when you're used to CMx1... Overall I mostly evolved from a rabid BFC fan to a despised ex-BFC customer, more and more dependent on Matrix releases to get a new wargaming fix (currently playing PzC:Kharkov, but after playing it 1 hour I go back to CMBB for 4! ). Now I just hope CMC will at least be released, even if it's old and ugly. You can say that my personal views, but most of my fellow gamer-friends just think the same - we still pbem CMx1, don't play ToW nor CMSF. And I'm not at all ignorant in PC games-wargames economy, I happen to be partner in a well-known such indie company I won't name (it's French, starts with A and ends with D , guess it! ) So BFC choice was not money-driven, they just wanted to move on, didn't listen to their fans, and searched a phantom customer base instead. We'll see what develop, but I have my (bleak) idea.
  12. "What's the minimum that would make you buy CMC?" Errr, like since 5 years, just that it's released !!!
  13. I beg to differ, releasing CM code won't break competition per se, it can just break commercial imitation... Not necessarily a bad thing, it helps moving forward instead of copying to death. And there's another solution, look at what happened to SP code : it was given to SPCamo and Matrix guys, both made semi-free expansions/upgrades, and sold them. Gaming-wise it was rather successfull, as for sales I don't know but the guys kept working on it for very long.
  14. The game seems to have 10 years old graphics, why won't it run under anything ? CM had a DX7-8 based 3D engine, CMC has none.
  15. CMx1 problems are only with DX10 cards, there's no problem with DX9 or below AFAIK. (or as Moon stated it's the other way round, compatibility was purposedly broken by eeeeeevil M$).
  16. If ever it get released soon, I'll say only good of BFC for one year (after cursing them for the same time due to ToW and CMSF utter disappointment for me, plus CMC seemingly vapowared). I swear it !!
  17. Free game could be a great surprise for our long wait ! Pat </font>
  18. Hey, I would have bet my right arm CMC was dead vaporware, but now after reading Moon... I'll bet my left only ! But Hope is here again !
  19. Sure it's something special, but way less flexible and without editor/lots of scen. I forgot the SSG games : Decisive Battles series and Battlefront. They're at regiment/Batt level, quite reminiscent of board wargames, and quite good also.
  20. To me lack of professionalism is the keyword here. Not even a post from BFC or the devs in what ? 3, 5 months ?
  21. markl I can suggest you the latest TOAW III incarnation, by Matrix also. It's a Norm Koger game from 99-2000, expanded and patched. Operational scale, very flexible, from battalions to divisions/corps, a powerful editor and hundreds of scenarios. Really looks like a boardgame with counters having NATO symbols and numbers Matrix uses serial codes only, no online activation/installation check/whatever.
  22. The Capt You may have a point in saying that proper urban tactics are not to dash through corners, but there's not 1 chance in 1 zillion that a real soldier will march on its fallen comrade ignoring gunfire coming from 10 feet away ! I think this is the original poster's gripe, and I agree. If the game is depicting battles "1:1", the squad should just get back and find cover after the front guys have been hit. Forcing player to micromanage what should be soldier survival instinct is just wrong. Sure CM1 wasn't better at this, but as the squad was somewhat abstracted it just didn't feel as wrong ...Plus you usually had more guys and cared less about casualties !
  23. Oh, those stupid customers, there they go again, huh? Adding features is important. Adding features that accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish, or that work at all, is also important. Dropping features that are popular and/or just plain useful is important too. But since when do developers know how to build the products their customers want? -dale </font>
×
×
  • Create New...