sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
You don't look silly to me. Thanks for understanding that not everyone thinks you are somehow diminished because a release date slips.
-
This has been covered many, many times before. But I guess nobody has ready any of those threads
The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.
The new QB system will have the following:
1. Player selected "forces", in the way the current QB system was intended to work.
2. Player selected "units", much like how CMx1 worked.
3. Maps which can be randomly assembled from "mega tile" maps (much like many old style board wargames, like Panzer Leader).
What the new system will NOT include are:
1. An obvious, in your face point system for people to squabble over.
2. Completely randomly drawn maps.
The resulting system should fix the problems with the CMx1 system (and please... don't even try to tell me it was "perfect" or I'll force you to search the Archives
) and also address the shortcomings of the current implementation in CM:SF. The overall goals are to give the player "cherry picking" capabilities while at the same time offering players the option to have QBs which are more rooted in reality. While it is true that at low levels there were often a mish-mosh of whatever was available, anybody who would argue that the average CMx1 game's force mix was anything other than a rare occasion on the battlefield is obviously studying a different WW2 than we're familiar with Steve
I understand your reasons for implementing/not implementing features in your games. I'm in no way being critical, nor wishing to derail this conversation about quick battles. However... I think some time ago, while you were saying the above for the third or fourth time I think, you said that you thought moveable waypoints weren't that far off (for CMSF I believe). I'm not going to try to hold you to this, it's really not the type of thing I do, but I am curious about moveable waypoints. Do you see them ever making their way into CMSF? CMNormandy (not its name, but you know what I mean)? Ever? Like I said, not a criticism, hell, I don't even have an expectation that you'll answer...
We now take you back to your regularly scheduled discussion about quick battles... I don't have a problem with the idea of using one of the many quick battle maps in the editor with each player choosing their own forces and not examining their opponents. I should be fairly easy for one of the many grogs here to come up with some sort of guideline for such.
-
There are links to both reviews on the main page since yesterday. That is www.battlefront.com for those who don't know
I guess I've been exposed as one who links directly to the forum. I can't remember the last time I went to your main page...
-
The reviewer gives the Marines a 95 and the Brits a 92. I can't say I disagree with those scores (although I'm sure there a those who will), but if you're interested in reading the reviews you can head on over and check them out.
-
I will try this, thank you very much!
-
Just a quick note to express my respect and admiration for the obvious dedication, time, and love of craft that all involved have put into the game.
-
I'd like to combine Brit and Syrian forces on one side vs US forces on the other, unfortunately I see no way of doing this with the settings in the editor. Am I overlooking something?
-
This didn't get mentioned in the official V1.20 Change list.
There are now 226 QB Maps. Each Map was reviewed and reworked.
All QB AI setups start as "Mounted" and all Pathing orders include dismount orders.
All QB Maps have Multiple plans and orders.
The AI will now be faster moving from it's setup area during meeting engagements.
Mark, many thanks to you and the QBG...
-
Beh, old goat meat is not eatable at all!
Supposing he cut of the head to feast on its flesh
Otherwise it's just a lil' juvenile farm boy without any clue how the word ethic is spelled. Roll over nothin to see there, how is a dead sheep worse then a dead fly? I just erased one of them uber irritating flying monsters from existence and it seems your popular new President did too, during an interview none the less!
Seriously, sometimes I question myself what is worse: killing a sheep for nothing, or killing a fly/ant/name it. Now that I come to think of it, probably I only do that after taking a lil *medicine*. The conclusion was that ethically it's the same thing, only practically the 'murders' differentiate (the ... messy bit). A fly has the same right to live as a sheep does. One notable difference is that flies do tend to invade houses and harras the occupants. However would a sheep step foot in my house I probably wouldn't kill it because of the messy bit. So I guess life is just not fair for flies, or old goats in Iraq during OIF in this case.
Flies, sheep, goats, why stop there? To take your stance to its logical conclusion one must conclude there is no difference between killing a fly and killing a person.
-
I don't understand why Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red is unstatisfying... they've been doing it for hundreds of years on a chess board and have found it to be quite satisfying.
-
I've browsed the manuals, probably even read them, and yet I keep pdf copies of them on my desktop so I can <alt-tab> out of the game at any time to reference them. I find this comes in handy for checking all kinds of things like a spotted unit's armament and range of fire. There is a lot of information in the manuals that I wouldn't expect to be in the game, but then I have a history of buying games with really thick manuals, e.g. Falcon 4 or (from BF) Dangerous Waters.
-
I'm not going to comment on the banning, but I do want to comment on attitudes in general. There are things I'd like to see in the game sooner rather than later - movable waypoints would really make my day - and some of these things Steve has said would be in the game in the not too distant future - I was sure movable waypoints would be in this patch since they weren't in the last one.
The thing is, I don't think BF and the Beta Testers (hmmm... anyone got a musical group they want to name?) owe me anything in the way of improvement other than bug fixes. I'm pretty sure this forum has been an invaluable source of good ideas for BF, I believe Steve has said as much. But, there is such a thing as wearing out one's welcome, and while some may not like it, treating others with respect typically gets one further ahead in life (and on internet forums) than being a jackass (I know this to be true from personal experience...).
For me, it's not a question of whether or not CM fits my ideal of a perfect game; I enjoy it for what it is. I'm aware that I don't know more than BF about their game's potentials and possibilities (many critics of the game, both here and elsewhere, seem to lack this perspective) which I hope comes through when I ask for things like moveable waypoints (a feature that would make the game vastly more enjoyable... for me!) and M707 los tools (a feature that I wouldn't use anywhere near as often). In the end it is their product to do with as they please.
-
My understanding of what is "missing" from the M707 is the ability to plot a movement order to achieve a hull down position. Normally when plotting a movement order to achieve a hull down position I use the target/los tool from the last waypoint to verify that it is indeed a hull down position. Can one use FO abilities from a waypoint in this manner?
-
Lurker765,
The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.
Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).
And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.
Steve
And all this time I was reading his name as Killjoy... <rimshot>
-
This is actually all over globe now. A company that sells the game who doesn't support it for new OS? Strange. Well I've seen it bf.
Look from another page someone wrote: 'Your either a good company or a bad company- If your game is 'out of print' then it's a mut argument but if it's still in your catalogue then you are obligated.'
Battlefront a small question. You still sell the game? Do you have a plan how to sell it when all has Windows 7?
Hmmmm?
Pike (Isn't that a sharp edge on that pike?)
Hey Pike, I'm not sure how much of a gamer you are but if you have Steam I suggest you fire it up and look at all the titles that Valve is selling that are not advertised as Vista compatible. Windows XP is still a popular OS, especially for gamers, and I see nothing wrong with selling games that were designed for that OS.
But I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he said if you don't want to buy it then don't buy it.
-
I guess I should start ragging on Subaru for a free hybrid engine as soon as they start offering them, after all I bought one of their cars and that should entitle me to all the latest technology as a free upgrade just because I bought one of their products... or maybe I should be able to turn in my progressive scan dvd player and demand a free blu-ray player as a free replacement. And then there is my computer itself, I'm sure Newegg should provide me with a new motherboard, cpu, memory, and graphics card (my drives are fine for now) because mine are a year and a half old now and I was/am one of their loyal customers.
When I purchased CMBB and CMAK they were advertised as being compatible with Windows XP and they were. I migrated to Vista and they no longer worked and while I found that regrettable I found no reason to blame BF for this, nor did I expect BF to make a Vista compatibility patch for titles that were designed before Vista was an uncompatible sparkle in Bill Gates' eye.
I will admit that I have said I would be willing to pay BF for the development of a Vista compatibility patch... I don't view this as being dumb or naive, in fact I think the opposite is true. What I'm realizing today is that I will buy the patches later tonight because I said I would pay for them but that I will probably never play those excellent CM titles again because I find CMx2 to be a far superior gaming experience.
The fact that BF is charging $5 - a song and a dance - for a compatibility patch - NOT a bug fix - for Microsoft's uncompatible OS is a good thing and I thank them for it (although I'm not sure I like adding the e-license "feature" to my hassle free copy). Which brings up a question, will the e-license information be stored on my customer page automatically or will I have to store it as yet another alternate address?
And BF, thanks for listening to customers like me who said they would pay for a compatibility patch. And thanks to Philip for his hard work too!
-
Leto;1144735']
1:1 is definately more cringeworthy...
Cheers!
Leto
Which makes it more cool, IMHO... so my answer is both! Anytime you want a PBEM let me know; anytime after the release of 1.2 that is...
-
As a gamer who enjoys many different types of games, I have developed a purchase strategy that goes something like this: there are usually three or four (the number goes down as the years roll by) titles per year I buy on release; all the rest I go bargain bin shopping for. When/if I find a bargain bin title that is really good, it's sequel (spiritual or actual) will probably make it's way into the "on release" group (after doing some research, of course). Sure I've overpaid for some titles this way but I could rattle off a list of titles that have given me many hours of enjoyable computer gaming (I too purchased Mount and Blade in beta form many years ago, but I haven't played it much).
As a gamer, I'm not ever really sure which game I will enjoy or why. I've pre-ordered every BFC title (CM:BO was BTS) that I could and have gifted others with them too (for selfish reasons no doubt!). I've only really been burned once, and we all know when that was, by this stategy. But even that one time has more than been made up for in my eyes by the work done since then to fix and enhance the title.
So, I can see why Joe Gamer would pick up a copy of CMSF for bargain bin prices. I can also understand why a developer would think their title has a lot of value. As a gamer, I've played a lot of titles that were critically acclaimed that I didn't care for. Those games offered a lot of value to a lot of people but very little to me.
Of course, if Joe Gamer has played the demo and knows he must have the title I would think him somewhat foolish for not supporting the developers more directly - I assume Joe would like to see more titles from BF...
-
Sfhand,
... Ideally every 2-3 years. That timeframe allows us to keep the engine updated to OS and hardware changes as well as the tons of gameplay improvements...
Steve
This is very interesting considering your general outline in this post:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&highlight=the+road+ahead
I've got to ask, given that your current timeline projects that in 2-3 years you will be releasing CM:N2, can I assume that all the other CM:WW2v1 titles will have been released prior to the hypothetical release of CM:N2? (no, I'm not trying to fence you in, I understand that in the real world timelines and schedules are subject to disruptions and changes)
And more to the current topic, any chance of yet another, oh, I don't know, lets say Romanian, development team making a module of exotic units and forces for each title?
And please do feel free to let slip any new info on the space lobster game...
Thanks!
-
^^^ or even better... release the module today so we can read our own copy of the list.
-
Lethaface,
... Not only am I interested to see how the CMBO guys react to CM: Normandy, but I'll also be interested to see how CM: Normandy 2 (a few years from now) react to Normandy 1.
Steve
Have I been asleep at the wheel here, or is this the first mention of CM: Normandy 2?
-
On the other hand, look at point 7. "Muzzle flame,smoke,dust and other effects directly attached to enemy unit behavior are no longer shown unless the unit is already spotted by atleast one friendly Soldier"
:eek:
just that point is a HUGE improvement in my eyes... hoppefully it means no more dustclouds showing where enemy vehicles are moving 1km away from where I can see with own eyes.
I am happy to see this also... I understand that these things are all compromises, so I don't intend for this to be viewed a criticism, but I have to ask, is there a spotting bonus when these effects are within the LOS of a friendly unit and the unit creating them has not yet been spotted?
I would think that the muzzle flashes one sees in 1.11 firefights from unspotted units would add a spotting bonus when they are within LOS of a unit. Then there are the times when vehicles are driven in gullies or behind ridgelines that are well within los while the vehicle is not. I'm assuming the dust cloud created will not be seen because the vehicle hasn't yet been spotted while in real life it would.
Again, not complaining or seeking justification and glad for the change, just wondering about the full impact of the change and some of the thinking that went into it.
-
That is *exactly* what I am missing and why I loved QB PBEM with CMx1 games so much. It was a test of skill between the two players across a more or less even playing field. Sure your opponent could have purchased a Tiger, but that means he has fewer points elsewhere. CMx1 PBEM QB's using the Short 75 rules was the most enjoyment I have even received from multilayer experiences in any gaming format. I played extensively on the Rugged Defense ladder and loved the challenge of playing more experienced players across an even playing field.
For those who were not around back then, the Short 75 rules kept players to the Mk IV and the early 75mm Shermans. With that rule in place, a supreme balance was achieved and it was up the skill, cunning and luck of the players to win the match.
You can not recreate that against the Syrians. That is what I miss.
Chad
I think I understand your feelings on this, and I share them regarding the potential for balance and beauty of CMx1 PBEM games. However, as I tried to suggest before, comparing CMx1 PBEM games to CMSF single player seems a bit like comparing apples to oranges to me.
I have found, by playing CMSF PBEM, that it can be every bit as exciting, balanced, and beautiful as the old PBEM battles I used to have. I'm not talking about Quick Battles though, I've read far too many damning things about them (including from the designers and BT) to even check them out.
-
...
Anyways, the reason I post this is I wanted to see how others feel about this. I may be the only one. I understand that BFC needed a break from WWII, but I miss the feel of victory from a foe that was both worthy and capable of my simulated forces. This is especially true for PBEM. I have not played a single PBEM in CM:SF for that reason.
Thanks
Chad
I haven't played anywhere near as much CM:SF as I have CMx1 titles. But I've spent the vast majority of my playing time for each game playing PBEM rather than against the machine. My own experiences with CM:SF PBEM is that I've had my @$$ handed to me quite a few times by the Syrians.
I think if you play a couple of Marine module PBEM's you'll change your view of the situation... If you think you take losing your guys hard now, wait until you see a much larger percentage of them slaughtered by what you consider to be a lesser enemy.
) and also address the shortcomings of the current implementation in CM:SF. The overall goals are to give the player "cherry picking" capabilities while at the same time offering players the option to have QBs which are more rooted in reality. While it is true that at low levels there were often a mish-mosh of whatever was available, anybody who would argue that the average CMx1 game's force mix was anything other than a rare occasion on the battlefield is obviously studying a different WW2 than we're familiar with 
TCP/ip WEGO w Replay possibly still for Normandy game!?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
A few random thoughts on this...
I play WEGO pbem most of the time so the tcp/ip issue isn't a big one for me. That said, I have played CMx1 tcp/ip wego before - I preferred pbem then too - and the only times I really enjoyed it were in a lan situation.
My understanding of why full fledged tcp/ip WEGO isn't included has to do with bandwidth considerations many people face with their internet connection. I understand the resistance to putting a MP feature in a game that people with low bandwidth connections will complain about. However, there are a few games that only support lan MP, I assume because of this issue, and I'm wondering if supporting full fledged tcp/ip WEGO for lan usage is an option you have considered. (I'm pretty sure you've considered it as you guys never fail to impress me with the depth of your thought processes)
For me it's not really an issue as I can still pass a memory stick back and forth when I play in a lan situation, however that form of sneakernet kind of ignores the technological advances of the last ~20 years...