Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
We have some clues where it originated from, but I won't go into details here.
Hopefully you can gather enough credible evidence so that some prosecutions might be in order. Crimes like this damage property and costs time and money to clean up the mess left behind.
-
There is a possible viral email that was sent to BF subscribers this AM. The email invites you to disable your virus software and click on a link to down load a new BF client. Don't click on any links in this email. There is a thread started here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91481 in the General discussion forum if you want more information .....
-
Bertram, you might want to edit your post. If someone clicks on those links their going to get fragged .....
-
I did the retarded thing and and clicked the link and now I've got a virus.
Try not to be as stupid as me and delete this mail instead.
I got the same email but there were no links to click on for me. It didnt look like anything that I had ever gotten from BF so I came here to check it out. sorry to hear you got zapped ....
-
Watch who you're calling a "Nutter"...All Real CM Players know that Steve parts his hair right down the middle...That is proof positive that CMN is BFC's last gasp before bankruptcy
So Let's all shout it out...Gimmie a "B"...an "A".....
Ahem, I have bigger boobs than they do. Give me a B....give me a F....Six, Your statement may be true but I dare say those birds look far better wearing halter and mini. Of course you beta testers are a close knit bunch so some of your fellows may wish to contradict me on that point.
-
I heard the sheep are the only thing that keeps them straight ... poor Sheila's don't have a chance ...
-
Who writes with an accent ? :confused:
-
Personally, some ability to sort the list, a larger list, and a few other things are the things I'm hoping for. Sub directories would also be great to have, though I wouldn't use them quite like the suggestions above. I'd simply have them divided up into broad categories like:
H2H Optimized
Blue Optimized
Red Optimized
Just the way my brain works
Steve
But that's the main reason to have the ability to create/view subfolders. We each have the ability to organize things based on how our brains work. I'm 99.9% sure mine works differently than yours
... -
Dear Mr Battlefront Can't decide if Dan is being quaint or just droll ....
-
Fair point, expect that you do have ways (or, rather, would have ways) of controlling Civ Cas. Avoiding the use of artillery, not blasting every building, restricting the amount of suppression you use, etc.
I.e., change your tactics. Which is kind of the point. Different situations and tactical problems require different solutions. You'd have to balance the amount of friendly cas you're prepared to suffer agains the number of civ cas you're prepared to inflict.
Oooh - a commanders dilema! CMSF should have more of those, IMHO.
Ok, I see where your going. However I was hoping that we might find some middle ground between the fully developed and scripted model that Steve mentioned and a flat random percentage chance given in your design. In the end were just really discussing what level of abstraction makes sense because Steve is pretty much dead set against a fully fleshed out civilian simulation and I don't think his level of detail would be necessary but on the other hand if the system is too abstract then I question if anyone would care to even use it.
-
Instead abstract the civs such that they're never actually present, but that any application of fire may cause civ cas, and factor that into the end-game results.
Jon S,
While I understand that your suggestion/solution would be much easier for BF to implement. To be honest, I would personally rather keep things as they are now than have to assault a ville where I know that I could inflict NonCom casualties but I have no way of controlling whether I do or not. Under your solution I would just say "f-it, I don't know if there are civvies there or not so just Rock and Roll". At that point its just kind of up to the roll of the dice .....
If you and others would be annoyed by having static NonComs in the way then IMO its better just to keep the status quo.
-
MarkEzra,
Complete with black berets, trench coats, and white socks? Steve
Since were talking about abstraction how about just black berets and white socks but no trench coats?
-
Yep .... I like Handihocs idea of making it abstract enough to avoid the complexities that Steve mentioned. Make the NonComs an icon that can be spotted but is stationary and doesn't move. if fire enters in or passes through that action area then there is a possibility of NonCom casualties. This would allow the scenario designer to include them or not.
Another addition would be to give a NonCom icon a random chance (or preassigned by scenario designer) to convert to a red sniper or ied trigger man. At that point they behave according to the AI script for those units.
-
As for the name, no... CM: Normandy will not be the release name. The actual name is chosen (long ago, actually), but it's not time to reveal it yet.
Steve
I vote for Combat Mission: Narnia
-
I currently use the pause command extensively for coordinating fires and doing such things as mounting and dismounting troops within the same turn. I'm concerned that adding command delays to WEGO will make the pause command less effective. Any one else concerned about this?
-
Mord,
Wow for my mid-life crysis I bought a 65 GTO but seriously I respect your commitment at this point in life. Lots of great advice from everyone here but I will add one more. Take a bible when you leave for basic and remember Philippians 4:13. Good Luck and let us hear from you when you can.
-
While we are talking about LOS/LOF and buildings, infantry can still fire at each other when they are in the same building and many floors apart from each other (vertically separated).
This is definitely happening .... I've witnessed it on several occasions recently. I thought it was coded as intended.... Normal Dude, if you can't find a save let me know, I'm sure I have one ...
-
MikeD Wrote: Perhaps BFC could be a bit more ham-fisted in distinguishing chain-of-command advantages. Rebuilding-in a bit of a 'bad commander' delay would be one way of doing it. If you're linked to Company HQ, and the Company commander is a drooling moron, then you take a command delay hit.
If command delays are to be added then I agree with your idea of linking command delay to leadership ratings .... I personally don't think the HQ/leadership ratings have enough impact on the CMSF battlefield .... In addition command delays should also be impacted by HQ locations or command radius .... Of course command or HQ radius should be much different for CMSF than say CM-WWII
-
I think the waypoint is too close to the wall to allow the Stryker to get to it.
Email me the turn though and I'll see if it's still an issue.
Cheers.
NP ..... shot over ....
-
Ok I posted this yesterday so I'm going to try and provide a little more info in the hopes that we can get these kinds of problems ironed out.
Here's what happens
The stryker begin the turn with the following move order.
The stryker moves through the breach without problems.
Then starts to get confused....
... and more confused ....
eventually it starts a wide turn
www.strngnet.com/cmsf/pic7.jpg
finally finishing the turn facing the waypoint but still a long way from where its supposed to be.... I tried moving the final waypoint one action spot out so that's its not so close to the building but that didn't seem to make any difference.
My motivation for bringing this up is to try and get these types of issues corrected. I understand that BF has made or is making changes to movement in the next patch. If you feel like this situation has already been fixed then that's great otherwise I can provide the saved turn to anyone that might want to take a closer look at this problem.
-
Ok I managed to get a save game of this vehicle movement issue using ver 1.10. This problem occurs during the second battle of the TF Thunder Campaign (Assault on the airfield).
If one of the CMSF Beta Testers or Battle Front guys wants to take a look I'll send them the save game .....
-
Steve,
Glad to hear you guys will be supporting both styles of play. For me personally, I'm not against RT at all. I have played and enjoyed several RT titles COH (Company of Heroes), WIC (World in Conflict) being the most recent.
Why then do I prefer WEGO in CMSF? At first I thought it must be pathing issues which in the beginning were numerous but have been greatly reduced with the latest patches. You are correct in saying that its the same game (RT vs WEGO). To be honest I really haven't played RT very much since 1.07 so I may give it another try.
I will say that CMSF is more a simulation than a game and while playing RT I do miss being able to replay the action. Sometimes I will get right down to ground level to see things from the soldiers perspective and I find myself replaying from several different angles. To me the graphic enhancements with CMx2 are just too good not to replay.
-
No need to take offense Hertston old man ..... just learn a little bit about marketing and you'll understand why I made the comment that I did. You'll get your Brit module that much is clear and I wouldn't begin to try and convince BFG to do otherwise.
Hey Steve, how about you guys including a combined US Army / British campaign in the next module. The Brits can mop up after the Grunts lay waste to the country side ...... While your at it, include a couple of Blue on Blue scenarios and it might just be worth $35.00 in US coin just to spank a few royal bottoms..
We can agree on one thing though, We both would like to see an IDF module .....
-
I'll have to agree with Scipio ..... I've tried both RT and WEGO .... There are still too many strange pathing issues for me to take RT seriously. RT (IMHO) requires to much micromanagement, and is only enjoyable for me when playing small engagements of Platoon size or smaller. WEGO is my preference when playing battles at Company Level or higher. There is a place for both play styles and I hope BFG continues to support both in the future.
I'm very interested in how BFG might handle or implement RT Co-Op play.
Why Normandy?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I know BF said they weren't interested in doing a WWII Pacific epoch, but I'd buy it if it was well done.
Imo it would need to include some things that you don't get in the other epochs like landing craft that actually swim to the beach and unload, flamers (hand helds and tracked), as well as the island terrain types (sand, volcanic sand, jungles, caves, bamboo groves, rice paddies ... etc). Of course the Japanese, US and Commonwealth units and TOE's.
Ok enough dreaming, maybe a third party will step up and be willing to do it right. Snowball you listening????
Once you get the jungle terrain looking and working correctly then CMSF-Vietnam would be a no brainer.