Jump to content

IMHO

Members
  • Posts

    981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

IMHO last won the day on August 22 2019

IMHO had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,725 profile views

IMHO's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

128

Reputation

  1. I'd agree with you to a certain degree. CM is different because community developed UGC is part of the equation. So if a certain title does not find much of a following then the title is in a kind of trouble. But for CMSF1/2 and WWII games there's a ton of content out there. For me CMBS was a bit of disappointment but reading CMCW forum it seems just not so many people like very challenging lethal battle space where a tiny mistake ruins the whole day After all games are just a form of entertainment - one kinda pays per-hour rate for "wasting one's time" So would you honestly say that even CMBS that is not so rich in UGC is more expensive per-hour than buying films of paying for Netflix? Save CMSF1/2 or WWII titles with very vibrant scenario community.
  2. I'd disagree. CM is different from other games since it offers every gamer an ability to make his/her very own game in no time. Aside from CMxx I play ARMA3 and HOI4. You cannot make your own games in HOI whatsoever and any descent scenario for ARMA3 requires scripting and good command of the engine so next to impossible for an "average" unless you can invest hundreds of hours into learning the object model and methods.
  3. If my memory does not fail me we've had just two major engine upgrades for the past 21 years of CM series existence And the first engine upgrade was released via new games rather than altering existing games so you didn't really need to invest more into the games you already own - old games stayed on the old engine and you got a new engine simply by buying a new game. Second engine upgrade was released step by step for the newest games in the portfolio (newest back then ). But you had to buy this upgrade just once and it upgraded all the games that you own that were meant to be upgraded. If I remember correctly it was 10 bucks whereas new games costed 40 bucks back then. Again 10 bucks in past 21 years and you got it all in one And those were TOTALLY different and MUCH improved games after the engine release. Minor upgrades come in patches and they are free. May be there were paid upgrades for WWII titles - I don't know. After CMBS I stopped playing WWII titles though I own two full sets of them as well. I didn't know I can reuse Win keys for Mac platform so bought a second full set by accident There are modules that add to your unit roster - they cost money but you really need to buy them only if you're either into "authentic looks" or you want some specific set of equipment or units that significantly alters the gameplay. I'm not a big fan of the former so I own only Marines for CMSF1/2. Three full strength fire teams, AAVs and Milkor do change how you play the game IMO. So basically the CM business model is (or was - let's see what Slitherine will do to the game ) different from big Triple-A titles. Yes, you pay more upfront but basically that's it. You don't need to burn monies every year or half a year to stay in the game. The question is will there be more revenue if BTS changes the business model. Will more gamers flock to the titles should BTS lowers the bar? I really doubt. CM is a VERY special game made for VERY special audience. If you like it - you'll buy anyway and if you don't - you won't bring your monies irrespective of the price. E.g. up-to-date GAME MECHANICS in EU4 will set you for $200-$300, up-to-date HOI4 - $150-$200. And when I say GAME MECHANICS I mean it. Without major DLCs you're playing TOTALLY DIFFERENT game from the rest of "the bunch". You have nothing to speak about with other players, guides and tutorials are useless etc. Good strategy/tactical game is expensive to develop so if the costs are allocated to a smaller audience you have no choice but to charge more for individual title. I'd say in terms of bang for a buck BTS is super-efficient.
  4. Will this new version automatically overwrite the old one if I ever update? I'm using BFC distro not the Steam. If it will be overwritten can the older version be put somewhere? I do prefer a "harder one" PS I think the discontent is partly due to how well placed all kinds of AT assets are. Were it not so carefully thought over - people would have waltzed through with no forum discussions. Actually each time my observers revealed a new one I was marveling the placement. And I liked well-timed retreat orders. Not one time I was right in the middle of carefully positioning my infantry to "ambush the ambusher" when the enemy suddenly redeployed and I had to start over again It was exactly long enough to delay my progress yet not too long to save the units to fight another day. Exceptional scenario!
  5. Incendiary pigs!!! May be different flavors for NATO and Warsaw Pact!
  6. They are not modules - they are different games. Gameplay is totally different. What you can get away in CMSF2 you cannot with CMCW and what is okay for CMCW is not for CMBS. And WWII titles are another beast unto itself. So they are not DLCs to a common base game. As per real modules in "CM speak" look into the TO&E. Like I bought CMSF/CMSF2 Marines to get 13 strong rifle squads, high capacity AAVs and Milkor MGL. Infantry combat feels sufficiently different with them when compared to US Army rifle squad with no CDTE.
  7. And thanks for making this happen! CMCW is incredibly well designed and full of most enjoyable content!
  8. M68/L52 and M68A1/L56, no? M68A1 after some time used a reinforced breach allowing bigger pressure / higher muzzle velocities. @The_Capt, if I'm not mistaken M774 can be fired from older breaches. Only M900 required a stronger breach - differentiated by breach serial number. Am I right?
  9. I had few replays and there has never been any problem with the main road INSIDE the setup zone. I really doubt TOW can hit anyone there - it'd hit the trees before it reaches any target. Sure there's a potential danger with TOWs hitting the reinforcements placed in the wide open but they're vulnerable enough to potential air support so they have to be hidden immediately in any case. The road OUTSIDE of the setup zone is dangerous but driving along it does not look safe anyway so why should it be a problem?
  10. Nah, that will kill all the fun. If you make the footbridge accessible to the tanks then you don't need to fight for the main bridge at all. You just clear the forest and take all your heavy force behind the US lines and win easily. Too easy - no fun. Firstly it's somewhat narrow firing lane. Secondly it's an an easy setup, immediately discoverable. Compare that to Debaltsevo in CMBS. There's no pre-sight for AI AT assets - it still takes full time to discover your units, target and fire. You have to consider possible enemy AT assets in the nearest buildings and overlooking hills. Add to that pre-planned barrages on setup zones and heavy air-support in CMCW that happen sometimes and you'd see you need to safely hide your units the first second they appear. Driving "those pesky command units/vehicles" across a wide open terrain for more than 10secs is definite ticket for disaster as well IMO. PS @ASL Veteran both the map and scenario is great! IMO they are meant to be challenging!
  11. Guys you have to play CMBS more RUS vs US or Excellent RUS (BMP-3/T-90) vs UKR Thermals teach to: Never ever move armor to a place that can be fired at from a place that has not been under observation by two observer teams for at least a minute (and two-three minutes is much-much better). Count seconds for your vehicle exposure. 3secs for APs, 5secs for HEATs, 10secs for TL/ATGMs at medium distances. That is the time for the actual exposure - vehicles take some time to drive out of the view. Use pop-and-hide multiple times to trigger a shot and thus force a lengthy reload for an enemy armor. That reveals enemy armor position as a bonus if you have eyes to look at Find unconventional observation angles for observer teams. Putting even 1-2 psn observation teams in front of enemy armor with thermals is a sure recipe for disaster. Even 1.0-1.5km distance is not enough - thermals can sometimes acquire targets pretty quickly. Be greedy with the number of people in observation teams. One guy is waaaay better than two and two is always better than three. Yes, you'd need more time to dwell upon the battlefield but you'd keep your guys alive. Hopefully How CMCW is easier than CMBS (so far ): No Javs that can be fired from inside the buildings with impunity. No thermals for US infantry. Relatively few thermals for US armor. PS CMCW is a really great game! Czechmate is a really great scenario
  12. I've been playing both franchises for about 20+ years so I remember the timeline OFP: ColdWar is 2001 whereas the first CM - CMBO - is 2000. ARMA2 is June, 2009 whereas CMSF is July, 2007. BUT ARMA3 is Sept, 2013 and CM Engine 4 is Dec, 2016 (but more like Jan, 2017 ). So CM had more time to mature at first but later on fell behind. I'd call it a a pattern of progressive underinvestment into the engine So it'd be interesting to know how many people really understand CM engine internals by now... We can discuss AI/Scripting side if you're into it. I sometimes play with ARMA3 scripting when I'm fed up with selling PMs/BAs/QAs/Coders and want to vent it out with hands-on coding Don't know how it works But I kinda doubt you cannot customize viewport rendering in OpenGL. My guess is massive downside with going DirectX path goes with all those versions of Windows, DirectX, GPU drivers. It'll multiply your development/testing effort. But on the upside you can utilize GPU resources whereas CM cannot use more than 20%-40% of a platform's computing resources. Loading time certainly has nothing to do with OpenGL/DirectX. My first guess would be there's no pre-loading/pre-processing the maps - every time we load CM engine "starts fresh". And secondly it's most probably an architectural problem - too many layers, using "consumer" libs or being too high level with abstractions. All those things will end up in bottom line of Steam sales channel. Those are not the folk used to "CMesque experience". I kinda think CMCW is a swan song of CM
  13. It takes me about a 1.0-1.5 minutes to load a "big" CMCW game like a Czechmate. Save is somewhat faster - 1.33-1.5 times faster, yet even for them 40-60secs is kind of unbearable. ARMA3 takes 15-20 secs to load a real 3D game with all its glitz. It seems current CM engine has waaaaay overstayed its welcome.
×
×
  • Create New...