sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
Fascinating, huh? I sense that you don't approve of my Sherman-rush tactic...
Not quite, check your pm, send me your email address, and you'll have plenty of dead/dismounted vehicles to click on...
-
As I was riding BART to the NorCal preview with my buddy we were talking about BF. We marvelled that a company so small could do so much and as a result of that conversation, and really thinking in depth about the resource challenges they must face, I have developed a much more positive impression of their work, and I was (apparently) a fanboi to begin with.
These forums are a great place for ideas, and there are many very good ideas that float around here, including moveable waypoints
, but I decided before seeing the CMBN build that I wasn't ever going to question their development choices again. That resolve has only been strengthened as a result of seeing the CMBN build.That said, and not meaning to derail, but one of my take aways from the preview was a strengthened conviction that RT play is not for me, and not because of control issues but because I am addicted to seeing the action unfold and while watching someone else play RT I noticed I was longing to see what was happening elsewhere on the map. In general, one of the interesting things about the preview was seeing how others approach the game, it was fascinating.
Thanks again to BF and the Beta's for all the work and the previews.
-
Yeah, next time I'll remember to bring a router. ; )
Just finding the right hotel on the first try would be good for starters... for all of us!
-
Well, I got mugged, but I was mugged by CMBN... I've got no details for anyone about the game because I was sitting there, a slack-jawed fool drooling down my shirt, wallowing in joy while watching my fellow attendees play CMBN.
We had a chance to ask Steve some questions and no one could snap out of the hypnotic spell we were under to ask even one.
A big thanks to Phil and Normal Dude (who really seems like a normal dude) for putting the time and effort to put this on, and to Steve for making himself available for questions that never came (raincheck???).
I really wish I could recall something other than general euphoria but I can't. My lasting impression is that almost everyone will be happy with this game.
Oh, as has been said in other threads, the QB system is Brilliant.
-
...by the time the final module comes out the title's timeline will extend through September...
The game + all modules released by September? Awesome news!
(shouldn't you have posted this in the release date thread?)
-
I'd like to bring along a non-forumite CM player. Not sure if that counts as a drop-in or not... I will assume it's okay until you tell me otherwise. And... thanks for putting the effort and energy into making this possible.
-
Nice to see pistols are modeled... to late for CMSF?
-
Thanks for the information update Steve!
I'm curious though, when does RT quit being Real Time? Pauses and playbacks? Not that I don't see and understand the utility of those features, but at some point doesn't it quit being a RT experience?
I do appreciate the direction you're heading with the game and hope for your continued success!
(I'm also really curious to know how you know that most of your customers don't play multiplayer... but my guess is you're going to keep those cards close to your vest)
-
Just in case my earlier response seemed unclear, I plan on being there.
Thanks!
-
What would be awesome, much like the mega-tile idea, would be the ability to join 2 or more maps together in the map editor (with user resolution of terrain issues) up to the supported 4kX4k dimension.
-
I guess it all depends on one's perspective... I've seen surviving crew used in ways that seem a lot more "gamey" to me (I'm sure I've been guilty of it as well). Now if I was wanting jeep drivers to drive tanks I'd see your point but in theory, if a team is trained to operate a bmp2 they should be able to operate any generic bmp2.
As far as the riskyness of getting back in a bmp2, well, lets just say you're understating things a bit... those guys weren't going to survive in or out of the can.
-
And it is in CMBN as well. I think when I made that post that I wasn't even sure if it was something I could do but I never went back and double checked. Before posting this I did check it. Crew can only re-man their own vehicles.
I'm wishing this was not the case... In one of my current pbem's, I have one fully functional bmp2 with only a driver and one fully functional crew with a destroyed bmp2. I also have a bmp2 gunner, a lone survivor, who would like nothing better than to pop off a couple of rounds at the enemy. While it seems intuitive that adding a gunner from one crew to a driver of another would be messy, is allowing crews from one vehicle type to crew another similar/same vehicle on the lengthy list of things to do?
-
The pcgamer article is how I learned about CMBO. I notice the gog site says it's vista compatible and they're selling it for less than here (not that I'm ever going back to CMx1).
-
I am not a grog nor military historian, but I wonder how battles such as the Charge of the Light Brigade have happened since, according to some in this thread, soldiers refuse to follow crazy orders. My understanding of antiquity is that large numbers of men fought to the death using very crude weapons. War is insanity to begin with...
Question about attacking mg's over an open field, are you talking CMSF or CMx1? Do you mean you won't "charge" the position? Surely you would have no problem attacking it from cover with a platoon split into 3 squads using today's grenade launchers and rpg type weapons?
-
If this would be a optional Feature that the scenario designer or the player could choose i think i would like it !
Isn't that a decision that a RL commander makes? Why would you want the game making it for you?
-
Simplisticly speaking, from just one person's experience, there are frequently times during my pbem games that I feel a RL commander would call off the attack, or retreat/surrender if defending, but I don't take those actions. For me CM is like playing a more realistic version of 3d chess and that's how I sell it to people I'd like to get into the game. To be able to play after the point in which a RL engagement would end would seem to be one of the reasons some choose to play in the first place...
Were I to choose to play "realistically" I would only need to surrender when things start to go wrong. Of course, my opponents might feel like I'm cheating them, or am being a gamey bastage, by not surrendering in those situations. They might be upset that the game allows an obviously inferior non-grog type a chance to compete with them in an "unrealistic" manner as obviously that is the only way a superior wargamer could ever lose to someone like that.
The one thing I was concerned about, game mechanic wise, during the AAR was the surrendering. But until I actually have a chance to see the game in person I will withhold judgement on this since Elvis and Jon both seem to agree it's not a problem as modeled
-
You might just as well argue that a clapped out 1960 VW Beetle is an alternative to a brand new 2011 Rolls Royce Phantom.
I must not post anymore on this subject as futulity meter will go off the scale. I must especially not mention that once BF had the Rolls Royce but deliebrately and with malice aforethought down graded it the ancient VW Beetle.
As someone who really only plays pbem, even when CMx1 was available (including tcp/ip), I don't agree... but, since pbem is going to be the only way to play multiplayer wego, you really only have one option if you want to play the game that way
-
I'll second the notion that pbem is a viable alternative to tcp/ip... if you use www-sendthisfile-com you won't have a problem transferring the really large files CMx2 can create and you will get email notifications everytime a new file is sent to you.
-
sfhand,
quick was probably the worst command Elvis could have used to move into the woods. Low sit-awareness, low combat readiness. Having had a look now at jus how many men he was moving in ( :eek: ), I think if he'd used Hunt instead of Quick he'd probably have smashed my forces up there at least as much as he was smashed. I had better than even odds on him, so I think I'd have still won the initial battle but have had much less to play with later on.
HE can be targeted beyond LOS. Not far out of LOS, but enough to allow supporting fire for attacks on positions that'd otherwise have to be attacked naked. Also, you can use area fire - or linear, I suppose - and make the area big enough to encompass the area you're interested in. I did that several times during the battle. The trade off is you get a thinner distribution of rounds, and some rounds are 'wasted' because they fall in parts of the targeted area you know there aren't any enemy.
JonS, thanks for the quck reply... most likely the Fast command would be the absolute worst command!
I've had guys diced up pretty good in the woods of CMSF using the Hunt command by what I assume were stationary forces (Mark Ezra would know for sure). It will be great to have the game in hand to test this! -
This is very true,nothing motivates a soldier to fight on no matter what then knowing that surrender will lead to certain death at the hands of some Taliban fighter that doesn't care about Geneva convention articles,or rules of War.
While I agree with the underlying point of your post about surrendering I don't much care for your example as it seems rather one sided to me. Regardless of my views, I don't think this board is the place to discuss war crimes...
-
A funny thing just happened. I was doing some chores and trying to remember what orders I gave my troops when they reached the woods on 154. And I am pretty sure I gave them the "Quick" order to run them into the safety of the woods!!!!
When I came back to the computer to post about it Jon asked me the same question!!
My guess is, as it appears to be the case in CMSF, moving units suffer spotting penalties vs stationary units. This understanding leads me to believe stationary smg units set up just past visibility range from the treeline would pretty much stop an infantry advance into the woods. As a result I'm having difficulty imagining the taking of those woods without first dropping a lot of HE on them. Is it going to be possible to area fire HE into wooded slopes (I've had LOS/targetting problems with this in the past)?
-
I have a post about that coming up
Let me guess, you guys did a sitdown months ago (which is why you're using an older beta build) and played a tcp/ip RT game while also taking screenshots...
-
Thanks! Just wondering if you think Red would be too under or over powered in the airfield mission for h2h...
-
As a BA resident I would show up, if only to pester a BF guy
FINALLY repositionable waypoints, or...?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
The Vulture, in post #11, pretty much summed up the situation as I see it. I don't feel there is a bigger advocate for movable waypoints than me yet it saddens me a great deal to see the issue framed as it has been in this thread. I'm pretty sure the game developers/designers understand the issue much better than various posters on the board, since they put movable waypoints in CMx1 in the first place. After seeing CMBN, in beta form, I will stick to my word and not second guess their design choices. Hopefully the day will come when movable waypoints are back in the game but I will not let their absence deter me from playing one of the best games out there - it hasn't stopped me from playing CMSF (all flavors).