Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
Next time I see a beta screenshot by BF, I will know that probably what I will get in the finished product as well, by your logic. Well that is nice.
BF is a small company and can not afford to endlessly keep adding features that you consider necessary. If they did then they would never sell anything and consequently would not be a profitable business and being a profitable business is a good thing for war-gamers that like what they produce.
Now, If you don't like their games and dont want to buy what BF is selling then that is your choice but many have bought it and consider it to be a very good product even without certain features included.
If you plan on waiting until they put out a version that has all the features you want then you will have a very long wait because I doubt that will ever happen. Remember BF is a small company and must keep producing products that sell. As the developer/producer they also have to determine if what they are selling has value that people will pay for. They are running a business and every manufacturer/producer makes these decisions every day. IMO and others, BF has done well in this regard, your OP obviously is different and thats ok.
I do however have one thing for you to think on:
The next time you buy a new car, trying going back to the dealer when the newer models arrive and convince them that they should give you the new models features for free.
-
I understand that complexity of coding has skyrocketed and that BFC's coding staff is tiny. I appreciate that we've now got single man resolution, but it came at the expense of the maddening to me AS issue (how I hate trying to site AT guns, let alone dig them in!), at the expense of a greatly increased wargamer's workload; as an even steeper learning curve than any of the CMx1 games.
You say you understand the complexity but I still think there is a disconnect as evidenced by your comments further down.
As it was, I lost a bunch of potential CMx1 gamers even at that, to them daunting, level of complexity. We seem to have gained much, yet lost a lot, as seen in how the engine handles towed/manhandled guns.These features are still in CMx1 and you can still play Cmx1 although as you point out most gamers have moved on and prefer the 1:1 resolution at the cost of losing some minor features
but I fail to see why we have to reinvent the wheel as to game features we had in the CMx1 games.when you ask question like this, I don't think that you fully understand the mechanics and complexity of the task, . When BF imagined CMx2 it was redesigned from the ground up because it had to be to achieve the higher fidelity of the battlefield. This meant that every feature in CMx1 was on the table and had to be prioritized for inclusion in CMx2. In the process however CMx2 has features in it that CMx1 never had so while you have lost some minor (IMO) features, you have gained some rather major features. As I said before if the features you feel that you lost in CMx1 are important to you then CMx1 is still a playable alternative however as I'm sure you are aware CMx1 was far from perfect as well.
We all have our personal features that we would like to see added to the game and hopefully BF will get around to adding them in due course and one of the greatest features of CMx2 that you didn't have in CMx1 is the ability to back-port these additions and enhancements into your previous investment keeping it fresh and up to date.
-
I submit this as a step toward justifying use of tank riders in Normandy. These are notes for Doubler's "Busting the Bocage." Please see item 8, which is highly specific on this issue, as compared to what happened when tank riders were NOT used. The stats are telling. Also of interest is mortar observers standing atop the tanks in the bocage, in order to be able to see.
Historical citations aside, not ever game can be modeled with 100% accuracy or needs to be. You can't however discount the technical reasons given for not adding tank riding which are numerous and complex.
Personally I don't think its worth doing unless it can be done correctly which will require IMO a significant amount of effort to implement and if done correctly it would be used a very small percentage of the time.
I am also quite confident that if or when it does get implemented there will be many on these boards who will consider it a flawed model and will provide us no end of links/references pointing out the failings of it.
Kind of makes you wonder why BFC would even bother ....
-
He's still around and although he finds the game sub par he still creates mods for it. So I think it has something to do with his multiple personality disorder.
-
The hold up for snow? Programming the TacAI to track blood trails. And to walk in the tread tracks to avoid landmines. And programming landmines to jam based on frozen moisture in the fuze train. And the ballistic protection characteristics of packed snow with a layer of ice on the face, in front of positions. And the jam ratio of weapons based on lubrication qualities. And the change in muzzle velocities with cold cartridges. And the denser air's effect on drag. And snow blindness. Blood trails and Yeti; aye, that's the holdup...
Including all this stuff to simulate winter warfare is ridiculous and no rational wargamer would expect this much detail ..... They should leave out the Yeti.
-
That map also sports some buildings with missing upper floors.
Mord.
Sounds like the town was recently shelled or bombed out ...
-
A post here in the CMBN support forum might get you a faster response
-
I find that the,
UI changes in game as well as in the main menus,
The FOW icons,
the armored CA,
the graphical improvements (visually and in terms of speed),
and The increase in the # of AI groups as well as the editor improvements;
All of these things do significantly enhance my enjoyment of the game so much so that I wont have a second thought about paying $5-$10 US to add these features to CMBN.
-
-
So you don't think the changes made in CMFI have significantly changed the way the game plays?
-
Now we have an option to buy an upgrade to get the new features ported back to CMBN ($10 or if you wait for MG, then the upgrade will be bundled with MG for $5). It seems that most people thing this is a small price to pay for updated features.
Gerry
Small price? That's an understatement. I still can't believe how awesome this feature is. Ten Bucks!!! When I go to get my hair cut once a month it literally takes my barber 15 minutes to do it and I pay her more than 10 bucks.
Thanks, BF for giving us a great game at a great value.
-
Since area fire is mostly used for suppression, shouldn't HE be the preferred round?
-
Except that the tank is going looking for a fight, and the truck, erm, isn't. There's a strong argument for not having trucks anywhere near the fighting (i.e. much further back than us gung-ho generals will use them, so far back they never appear on the map), but there are situations on large maps where the action would stagnate without something to shuffle troops across large distances. If tank riding were possible, it would be used all the time (saving only self-restraint) which would be "historically" incongruous with the theatre being portrayed.
Why don't we use trucks all the time or keep infantry mounted in HT's all the time? The answer of course is we have learned that a single penetration would likely take out all occupants. Making tank riding less dangerous than riding in a HT or truck and players will use it with impunity. Make riding on a tank just as dangerous as an Ht or truck, will prevent players from using the tactic without reservation.
Of course if it be comes so dangerous that players decide not to use it, then why waste the time to code it when there are other things that need dev attention?
Like most things its not as easy as it sounds. If CMx2 is to be called a sim then it must be done correctly or not done at all.
-
I opine that the UI is realistic enough. In effect, artillery is a very mechanical combat operation; you place your order, it runs through the assembly line, and the finished product pops out as specified. JohnS already mentioned friction.
To point #1, a change order is best handled as a new request. When the fire mission came in, the Fire Direction Center begins plotting the solution at the same time as the gun bunnies prepare the rounds to be fired and identify the adjusting gun. To plot a change on the fire direction board is actually more time consuming and more prone to human error than starting over from the beginning with the updated target information.
To point #2, it is realistic enough per WW2 C2. Remember, that the gun bunnies only laid aside the rounds required per your initial request to "harass". They need more time to obtain and prepare enough rounds for the changed requirement.
It is more realistic to expect that a "repeat" fire mission (fire again on a previously fired target) should go faster but then I can deal with "friction happens"; things like other priorities of fire now precede my repeat mission, or the repeat mission is being called in by a different FO from a different location, or a different battery altogether was assigned and needs to fire my repeat mission.
Artillery is a wonderful friend in a firefight, best imaged as a big and clumsy hulking bruiser, not as quick or nimble. Adjusting Air Support is even harder . .
To your last point, it is all right to be annoyed when plans go awry. Always have a plan B (and C and D) when you can. Good luck and good gaming!
What you say here is correct but in addition keep in mind that in RL a battery will almost certainly have fire requests coming from other units and may or may not be dedicated just to your attack or defense. What happens if FO (Baker) requests a fire mission and then after that mission is fired the battery is now busy processing a fire request for FO(Charlie)?
If FO (Baker) has priority of fires and he wants to re-fire a previous mission then Charlies request gets dropped and the guns need to be relaid to the previous target. However if Baker doesn't have priority of fires then they will continue with Charlies request before they can process Bakers request. In either case all this takes time and is simulated by having to go through the complete call for fire and delay.
The game implements TRP's which can be purchased to simulate indirect fires that are more responsive to your fire requests. All in all I think BF did a pretty good job in how they have implemented indirect fires. As someone else mentioned on the whole indirect fire in CM is probably more flexible than was the actual case.
-
Agree infantry with DC's should use the DC in preference to grenades when attacking armor or dug-in/fortified infantry. Ideally they should use both but with a higher % chance that they will use the DC.
Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that DC's will do more damage to armor than grenades. Has anyone tested or observed if this is the case? If the game isn't model this way then it should stay like it is so I can save my DC's for breaching.
-
the new units and terrain are great. the 250 qb maps are really incredibly well done. seriously. the new commands and additions also make it that much easier to play and I must say the CMx2 series has really hit its stride, much like how CMBB was more than just CMBO east front, the game series had come into its stride
When CMBB came out it was hard for me to go back to CMBO because of the changes that were made. Thats one of the best things about the way BF is handling CMx2, all my games will stay current with the latest fixes.
Can't wait for CMBN 2.0
-
Great pics, did you doctor these pics at all or are they straight from the game. If their untouched, I would really like to know what mods your using.
-
Um, not quite.
A PzIV vs PzIV test compared to a Sherman vs Sherman test would, again, show nothing worthwhile vis a vis Sherman to PzIV spotting abilities. PzIV vs. "Tank X" and Sherman vs "Tank X" is what is needed.
Thanks, my tests will begin with more of a general spotting test to determine a baseline for each vehicle as you suggested here:
If you want to compare actual spotting ability, you'd need to set up a blue on blue (or red on red) test of the second iteration.PzIV -> Sherman AND Sherman -> Sherman: this would be an apples to apples test.
(Or, if you'd prefer, Sherman -> PzIV AND PzIV -> PzIV.)
-
C3k's point is well taken ... If there is a spotting issue related to the vehicles in Noob's test then as he said, it might be that the PzIV data is flawed or the Sherman data is flawed.
To determine which it might be then tests would need to be made using the same vehicle ... PzIV vs PzIV and Sherman vs Sherman
@Noob, Thanks for creating these tests and barring any unforeseen issues I will be using your setup to test the response times using c3k's blue on blue force suggestion. I'll post my findings here ...
-
Abrupt is a much better description of the response.
I think its a good idea to not try and read too much into the tone of a response on a message board. There is absolutely too much left open for interpretation in a strictly written medium.
Now if someone calls you an $%^#bag then by all means feel free to be offended
. -
Yeah it's a shame they used that game engine in such a way - but luck for Battlefront nevertheless!
Luck doesn't play into it. They designed their game engine to do what it does as an RTS. No doubt it would need to be heavily modified or scrapped completely to be used as a combat simulation the likes of CMx2.
CMx2 can be played in RT but its not an RTS.
-
It's good to remember that AAR's can be misguiding sometime. Company & battalion leaders might have tried to look reports more nicer than they have been. Specially when talking about enemy forces they encountered and destroyed. It's easy to write AAR with "killed Tiger" and maybe it was already abandoned. History is always written by those how win. We might never know the truth.
I agree that real life AAR's give excellent inside of war but I'm always skeptical for one-sided information.
dpabrams: Open and totally different terrain is giving me too much problems. Got too used for Normandy bocage terrain.
Of course AAR's can be misguided but so can many so called history books. Of course to truly verify this document historically you would need to attempt to get similar accounts from different sources from both sides of the operation.
However what makes this document important to me is not that it should be taken as absolutely 100% factual. What makes this important is that its told directly after the battle and not told 5, 10, 20 or 30 years after. Therefore I would come closer to believing this rather than something someone remembered 30 years later while being interviewed by Stephen Ambrose.
-
Thanks for the explanation and thanks to both of you for a great AAR
-
Battlefront, get your arses in gear you just got some stiff competition next gaming year.
Yawn
, seen it before. Nothing new here, She's very pretty and extremely shallow. Maybe a great one night stand, but you could never have a long term relationship with a game like that.
Waiting to buy CMBN
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Deisel, if you will notice my reply was not directed at you but the OP of this thread, however since you took personal exception to my comments then perhaps they were appropriate for you as well.
Movable waypoints and covered arcs are something that players have wanted even back during the CMSF days. This might shock you but when BF released CMBN, I played the demo, I saw that those features still weren't include and I was disappointed but I still bought the game. How about you, did you buy CMBN knowing those features were'nt included? How about all the problems with the armor models and ballistics which you pointed out in another post, did you play the demo and then made a decision to buy the game?
You seem to miss the point that you make a decision to spend your money the way you want and BF has the option to release their product in what they consider to be an acceptable state. This is a business decision that they make and for the most part that decision can sometimes be a gamble. This happens in the software industry all the time, developers release stuff and it fails or they release it and it's a success but that is the developers/producers decision to make not yours and not mine.
No one is making you pay anything. It is your decision is to decide whether the product is something you want to spend your money on and if not then don't buy it. So far, it appears that BF's decision to release CMBN was the correct one for them. I will personally keep making the best decision for myself concerning how I spend my entertainment dollar and it is my suggestion that you do like wise.
Now this doesn't mean that you can't express your opinion on the mechanics of the game but lets stop all this nonsense about having to pay for bugs that should have been fixed before release because no one took your money or anyone elses, we all gave it willingly and a great many of us consider it money well spent. If you don't then you have no one to blame but yourself and if you keep paying money for something that you consider to be a of no value then your just acting foolishly.