sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
It's been a while, so my recollections are rather fuzzy, but I never had to go digging for the file the way you have had to (although I did temporarily turn off UAC...). If I'm not completely out to lunch (and I probably am) I think I once I set up both my email client and CMSF to be run as the administrator the files were written to their proper locations (and not hidden). I may have also tweaked the directories' security settings under their property menus, but I wouldn't start there first.
-
I've never played TOW, mainly because I'm not really into real time strategy. So, I really have no way of understanding its shortcomings as compared to Combat Mission. Nor have I played Close Combat, so, the only yardstick I can apply is CMx1 and CMx2. If there is no wego in Kharkov 1943, as I said I won't be interested, but even then I will be curious about how it stacks up against the other 2 games you've mentioned.
Care to elaborate on what you perceive to be their strengths and weaknesses?
-
Hey Moon,
Sorry for my ineptness, I'll be more careful in the future...
-
Kharkov1942
Until it's released it is an unknown, but Steel Fury is getting some pretty good reviews...
Personally, as a wego player, I doubt it will compete for my gaming dollar, but all the real timers may be persuaded to check it out.
-
Steve,
I understand your position, but I must ask one question.
I'm using an 8800gtx video card (it seems some guy who works at BF said nvidia was the way to go...) and at a certain distance the trenches "bug" out and become invisible. I believe you've said it was an nvidia driver issue. So, not being a programmer, I'm wondering, is there a not-too-labor-intensive way to make this nvidia "bug" work for hiding terrain features until they are "spotted" (and at the same time fix the nvidia "bug" for people like me)?
Thanks,
sfhand
-
CM: Gettysburg!
I had the Sid Meier game which, for its time, was excellent. My guess is that a Gettysburg title would sell like hot cakes, but then I'm very biased
I know the horses could represent a problem, but there are sure to be work-arounds... Each horse and rider could be treated as a team, i.e. both stay together. Then adjust the current setup allowing for the team to be split again for dismounting cavalry.
I know, you don't want to do horses... But, let's look a little closer, there would be no vehicle work needed beyond wagons (again, treated as teams that one can split to thier individual elements) saving development time there.
Troops wouldn't need to be split up because the vast majority of fighting was done in formations. You would need to add hand to hand combat - limited to bayonets and sabers perhaps.
I also believe that a results based campaign would be quite compelling if done properly, which I'm sure would be the case. You would also have developed features for a presumably successful title that could be used in other titles, e.g. hand to hand combat - please note I'm not mentioning the dreaded h-word here
-
It just happens to be that the United States is going through the same belligerent period Europe went through a few hundred years ago. USA is a teen needing to show off a bit while Europe has matured and learned the lessons that nothing can be gained by war of aggression.
The US is led by fear, while Europe has found the co-operation and co-existance in EU and is consentrating on that ideology on the world politics instead of trying to "get the world on the right track" as Steve put it. You can't force anyone to change their ways of life.
Operation Liberty Freedom Justice League - Failed.
Umm, I'm sure you know that WW2 was a war of aggression that was started in Europe, by Europeans, less than a few hundred years ago?
-
As a self-proclaimed lefty, I must say this has been a very interesting and surprising thread. My thoughts, in general, are as follows:
The U.S. could accomplish much more in the world using a carrot rather than a stick.
The U.S. was one of the major authors of the Nuremberg Principles, and as such should take them seriously as Universal Principles.
The U.S. would do well to remember why the USSR dissolved, i.e. unsustainable levels of military spending.
The U.S. would do well to heed General/President Eisenhower's farewell address re: the military industrial complex
All the oil in U.S. territory, if pumped, will be sold on a global market by global oil companies; oil is a global commodity.
-
I support the plan. If I ever create a scenario or campaign worthy of submission I'll submit it.
Thanks again, BF.
-
Thanks
BTW, your idea of the RT/WG TCP/IP option highlights one of the primary differences in these methods of play. The "decision cycle" for WeGo is open ended, by default anyway. This means the player can pace himself as he sees fit because he knows he has infinite time to conduct his personal play style. In RT everything is on a continuum with no definite start/stop inherent in the system. It is just as disruptive for the WeGo player to have the turn start up suddenly as it would for the RT player to have a pause stuck in at regular intervals. The RT/WG multiplayer game would basically mean the WGer would get to play his normal way, the RTer would find himself playing in neither RT or in WG Modes, but rather something kinda inbetween. That would take some getting used to and there would be no solo play to reinforce it.
Yup, it's obvious that I find the play style differences between WG and RT fascinating
Steve
A couple of thoughts... The WeGo player's time between turns could be limited, either in the form of x seconds per turn or x minutes per game (e.g. 20 minutes of planning time per hour of game time, to be drawn upon at the player's discretion). The first model would seem to be the less complicated and the second would fit my style much more.
Which brings us to the perceptions being put forward of WeGo again. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my experiences as a WeGo player seem much different than those being put forward. For instance, I don't usually spend a lot of time "micro-managing" units. Most of my time is spent during the set up. During the play back I often don't watch replays more than once because, and this is big, I am free to watch, i.e. I don't have to issue orders.
I recently played Trident Valley as blue force against a friend. My advance was 3 pronged. The only "micro management" aside from making sure paths were concealed behind ridgelines(which was mostly done during the setup) was to unhide a dismounted platoon and have it target a bmp. Everything else(targeting) was basically left to the AI. My limitation is that I can't believe that I would have been able to monitor the 3 different areas of potential conflict on the map in RT.
I would argue that situational awareness is the reason I prefer WeGo over RT - that and the fact that I doubt I'll ever be able to quickly use the UI. Every second I'm looking at the UI is a second I'm missing what's happening in RT (yes, I know about pausing, but at some point that will start costing me more time per turn than replays I often don't watch). Another underrated aspect of WeGo is the excitement generated by the fact that you can't immediately pull your guys out of harms way. This doesn't lead me to "micro-manage" it leads me to think of contingency plans prior to execution - maybe this is why my set ups usually take a long time.
Bear in mind, I prefer PvP and that colors my perceptions of both RT and WeGo.
-
Steve,
Once again you demonstrate that which makes Battlefront far superior to all other game developers...
Thanks!
-
Out of curiosity, do you play single player WeGo as well? Never tried RT with the pause feature?
I play WeGo. I don't always watch the replay but often find it useful. I find PBEM to be the very best aspect of the game - although I'm probably an exception to the following, I find human opponents far superior to the AI.
As an aside, much has been pointed out about WeGo and players' control issues, but RT players have much more immediate control than WeGo players. So there are different types of control involved. The term micromanagement has been used to describe WeGo, but one could also view RT as micromanagement since WeGo involves submitting plans and then releasing control until the next planning interval whereas RT depends on immediate control. I'm not saying one is superior to the other. I'm glad both options are available.
I don't really want to discuss whether RT or WeGo is superior though, that would be the other thread. I'm trying to discuss an option for you and I to play each other with each of us using our preferred style of play. You would have to do without pauses and I would have to do without replays. You would have more immediate control of a unit whereas I would have the ability to control more units. When Steve said that technoligically they were virtually the same I wondered why we couldn't "get it on"!
-
sfhand,
If there were no technical reasons, we'd have already done it
The best we can do for the near future is to have WeGo TCP/IP without Replay. This has been discussed in detail elsewhere on this Forum recently (Search should come up with the threads). It's not the optimal solution, we know, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.Steve
Umm, even without the replay, allowing one player to play in RT while the other plays WeGo could be interesting... replay isn't the only advantage of Wego when one considers large engagements.
And I don't buy the concept that WeGo players need "rigidity". I prefer WeGo because that mode of play improves my ability to monitor the battle and my ability to respond to multiple threats more efficently. While this may not be true for you or others who prefer RT, it only adds more credence to my idea that a WeGo/RT tcp/ip mode of gameplay would add another compelling layer to the CMx2 experience.
-
Since there are no underlying technical reasons not to...
Why not make a RT vs WeGo mode for tcp/ip?
Play the game in one minute incriments giving the WeGo player replays and disallowing pauses for the RT player. You could even have a variable time limit option between turns...
-
This is an accurate and true statement. In warfare the chances that an entire company, or even a platoon, starting to execute a complex plan on the fly perfectly and concurrently (i.e. the exact same second) is so low it shouldn't even be considered a possibility.
This is why I favor command delays based on multiple factors as has been much discussed around these parts...
I have no measurement for realism in the games, which leaves me to rely on suspension of disbelief which is,of course, entirely subjective. But I will say, for me, multiple units attempting to operate in a co-ordinated fashion seems much more "believalbe" than what happens when I try to control things in real time...
-
As one who plays WeGo, I'm glad the RT option is there. From my perspective, the more people your product appeals to the more resources you have to put back into them. I bought Dangerous Waters through you guys and feel it's an excellent example of a game that didn't get the amount of post release support it should have because of it's limited appeal (no knock on Battlefront or Sonalysts(sp?) intended).
Maybe someday I'll actually try RT, yet for now WeGo is challenging enough. I've always thought it boils down to what people like. You've put forward interesting reasons for your preferences and I'd like to put forward mine (even though I'm sure you've heard them before...)
I like large engagements. In attack/defend situations being the defender isn't nearly as time consuming as being the attacker initially for obvious reasons. Meeting engagements also have time intensive setups. While I enjoy devising the plans that are sure to fail, implementing them can become tedious. My preferred method in CMx1 was do do group movements and fine tune the waypoints after. This saved a lot of time and therefore reduces time spent in, what is for me, the most tedious part of large battles.
The main reason why I can't imagine playing RT is that I really enjoy analyzing the terrain, devising a winning strategy, and then implementing that strategy in a way that leads to victory. In RT, from my past experiences with other games, I feel I will miss quite a lot and not be able to adequately employ my strategy. I can see playing a small MOUT engagement in RT and enjoying it immensely, I'm just not there yet.
Hopefully, in the future I'll utilize the game to its fullest potential, but for now I'm still stumbling around trying to figure out modern combat, and I believe WeGo allows for a more streamlined learning experience...
I've never relied on the AI to find the best route as I've always viewed CM games to be not only a simulation of playing as el supremo but also as lesser leaders on the battlefield. For that reason I thought the command delays in CMx1, while not necessarily realistic, were reasonable modifiers to an unrealistic situation.
And, call me a fanboi if you want, I will continue to suport your products, not because I think they are perfect, but because they are enjoyable and I appreciate the craftsmanship and dedication you guys put into them. I really like your plans for the future and hope to see ww2 soon, which is why I view purchasing your cmsf modules as doing my part to help to kick the ball down the road (with the added perk of getting swell stuff to play with).
See you in Normandy...
sf
-
Okay, after a long post was lost because my account timed out I'm keeping this short...
I don't play RT and have no problem with RT.
For me, one who didn't know the first thing about wargaming when I bought CM:BO, the effort I had to put into learning to play effectively was worth it because I found the gameplay to be compelling. CM:BB and CM:AK each raised the bar in terms of what was required of me in order to find the gameplay compelling. This has also been true of CM:SF, however...
SF was released, as we all know, in pretty poor condition. I've basically set it on the back burner and waited patiently for BF to fix it, which they've done to a large degree. I'm now able to play the game the way I prefer to play it (PBEM) and have confidence that my efforts to learn the UI as well as the capabilities of the equipment won't be wasted. This is no small undertaking for me - my being blessed with a small intellect and no knowledge of military strategy makes the time investment a large consideration...
For me, one who prefers larger battles, the time investment could be drastically reduced with the introduction of moveable (and insertable) waypoints. It's true I think tweaking the tacai is important (to resolve path finding issues), and probably more so in rt, I'd like to see the waypoint issue addressed. So what about it Steve, are you guy going to show us a little waypoint love in the CM:SF family of games? Regardles of the answer, it would be nice to know.
(and how do I get the forum to quit logging me out while I type?)
-
Dropping a quick note to express my support for Battlefront. Hopefully the global economy will allow us to purchase your games when they're done...
-
I tried loading a 1.08 pbem turn and discovered it worked in 1.10. Does this mean it is possible to pbem with someone running 1.08? Have I misunderstood that the core of the original game has been altered with the Marine module?
-
How would one go about playing the stock campaign as 2-player?
-
The campaign that comes with cmsf is single player only...
-
Thanks,
I'll keep going and see where the trigger point is...
-
[spoiler ALERT]
Reinforcement group 2 doesn't actually arrive in the first battle even though the game announces their arrival. Is there an editor fix for this? If so, please explain how it is accomplished.
A side note to Battlefront. As a long time fan of your games I freely admit it has taken me a while to wrap my head around modern combat. That didn't stop me from pre-odering 2 copies of CM:SF and eagerly anticipating it's release.
When I started playing CM:BO I knew nothing of WW2 combat, and while I'm certainly not a grognard, I feel CM:BO, CM:BB, CM:Ak have all helped me understand some of the tactical challenges faced by both sides during WW2. I vividly remember searching out AAR's written by Fion Kelly and the excitement generated by the prospect of using new tactics against my PBEM opponents.
I'm starting to feel a similar level of excitement about CM:SF, yet, for me, it starts with the idea of playing through the campaign before I take on PBEM opponents.
The reason I pre-ordered the game is because you have consistantly shown that you stand behind your products 100% and because I have enjoyed all of your prior releases (even though adjusting to changes can be momentarily uncomfortable,e.g., for me it took some effort to switch fronts with CM:BB). As an avid computer gamer, I wish all game developers were as supportive of their products as you are. Thanks for conducting business the way you do, and for creating the revolutionary products you create.
All in all, with BFC, their testers, and an energetic community I have no doubt that the franchise will continue to be successful.
I'll go back to lurking now...
-
Have you tried turning off AA in game options? This solves the problem for me.
Game observations from a returning CMx1 player
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
c3k, are you playing PBEM and using the default incoming and outgoing directories?