Jump to content

ParaBellum

Members
  • Posts

    2,061
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ParaBellum

  1. What I know is that I'll never see a CMBB 2. :(

    That's Ok, I do understand BFC's reasoning here.

    But I'm still hoping for "Barbarossa '41", "Kharkov '42", or "Bagration".

    And yes, I'm also looking forward to for a couple of western front releases, such as "Gold, Juno, Sword", "Market Garden", "The Bulge" etc...

    I'm pretty confident that BFC will keep my wargaming needs satisfied for the foreseeable future.

    [ January 15, 2007, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

  2. Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Here's a small bone for you guys. Vehicles have hotspots coded into the model and the models have coded "extras" available. CM assigns each vehicle "extras" to these hotspots on a semi-random basis. What I mean by this is one vehicle might have a couple of jerry cans in one spot, the other one a whole bunch of boxes. On one tank there might be a spare roadwheel on the turret, another might have two in the bustle rack along the back. That sort of thing. Means nothing in terms of the game's mechanics, but it sure does make the vehicles look more realistic.

    *chews happily on bone*

    Yummy!

  3. My mistake. ;)

    I'm quite positive that CMSF's grafics will actually be better than what's currently shown in Armed Assault. The very early screenshots of CMSF so far already look very good.

    OTOH one should keep in mind that the size of the battlefield in ArmA is gigantic compared to the ones that will be featured in CMSF.

  4. I wouldn't consider ArmA grafical state of the art in any way. For example both Oblivion and Gothik 3 look WAY better than ArmA.

    Textures and objects in ArmA look nice but buildings have no real damage model, there's an awful amount of textures popping up at closer distance and performance ranges from so-so to abysmal.

  5. Originally posted by JasonC:

    They cost 114 points each, exactly the same, incidentally. I leave it to you to judge which is better in practice.

    I'd say it entirely depends on the situation. The large amount of HE rounds and MG ammo the T-34 carries and the good mobility in difficult ground situations makes it a very nice asset to have around.

    Of course, in QB-style matches against cherry-picking axis players the usefulness decreases.

    But who plays QBs anyway?

    ;)

  6. The "turkey shoot"-problem was quite a bit of a worry for me. Until I remembered how much fun I had playing the Red Army in the summer of 1941 or a scratch force of Volkssturm and Volksgrenadiere in 1945.

    I think it will be totally up to the scenario designer to come up with challenging, yet plausible scenarios for the US side.

  7. That's when I remembered that Charles has some test code still in place. You know, for easily seeing buildings collapse. So yup, I watch the third floor fall on the second, then collapse the first floor and wind up with a huge dust cloud. All from one shot.
    Now this sounds interesting.

    The Germans have an 8x8 that has all 8 wheels pivot and therefore the turning radius is nearly 1/2 that of the Stryker. But that's the Germans for you... always showing off "vat ve kann do betterrrrrr tan uoo." ;)
    Now this sounds funny. Beware the mighty Luchs. ;)
×
×
  • Create New...