Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Panzer76

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Panzer76

    I'm worried about the WWII release.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    The point balancing is even more difficult in CM:SF for reasons I've raised either in this thread or some other thread. How do you point balance an Abrams with ANYTHING on the Syrian side? In the correct circumstances the only way to kill the Abrams is to have more taks than the Abrams has ammo. In other situations one dude with an RPG to the flank can quite nicely knock it out.

    Steve

    How is this different from say, a Tiger in early war. How is the Russian/US player supposed to knock out a Tiger with T34s or 75mm Shermans? Well, they could use Bazooka (RPG) or an ATG (ATGM). I dont see your point here. At all.

    The only *major* argument in the point debate was the point value for the Stug, seeing it had its frontal armour abstracted to the point it could not be killed from the front by a T34, which was not historically correct.

    Seems the only good reason for this, is athe C&C as you have mentioned. A shame really.

    0

    Here is how bad the movement code actually is, and it's not just "pathfinding"

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    You're not only supposed to dislike the game in its current state, you are supposed to hate the RealTime feature because it is useless. Well, according to some, anyway ;)

    Ive seen you harping about this many times now, but I still have no idea where your getting it from. Nowhere have I seen anyone saying that RT should be removed and WEGO be the only option.

    What I *have* seen is people that want WEGO implemented with TCP/IP. Or people that feel that the core game design (UI etc) is designed with RT in mind, not WEGO.

    To me your repeated comments about this seems like your fighting an imaginary enemy and you like to tell everybody about it. For whatever reason, I do not know.

    0

    Another CMSF review for those who care, 5/10.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    This time its the Norwegian gamer site, Gamer.No who reviews CM:SF.

    Gamer Review

    Since arter few can read Norwegian, I'll translate the main points.

    *Disappointing TacAI

    *Disappointing Strat AI

    *Lack of good turorial and on screen help

    *Ugly terrain gfx

    *Nice 3D models

    *Realistic models (under the hood)

    *Good potential if issues above gets fixed

    So, pretty much the same we have read a dozen times before.

    0

    1.02, battles still as exciting as ever.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Panzer76, in your zeal to tear CM:SF a new hole every chance you get, you might do well to remember when the things you are complaining about in CM:SF are identical to the problems in any game in general or CMx1 specifically. CMx1 was blasted, time and time again, by people saying that playing as the defender was as simple as hitting the GO! button. I'm guessing that Panzer76 was saying the same thing when he played CMx1 games too.

    Steve

    Thing was Steve, in CMx1 I atleast had access to new maps everytime I loaded it up. I had access to more units, and I could hand pick them, just to make fun/interesting combos.

    Indeed, the Strat AI in CMx1 was weak, but hey, at least he MOVED the units. Here, they move a few meters, stop, hang around doing nothign for some time, move again etc. Its a step backwards as far as I can see.

    And, I thought this was the new revolutionary CM, so I dont get it why you defend it by saying the attacking AI in CMx1 sucked too. I thought you were trying to improve the game.

    Lastly, yes, only a human can give a decent challange, but you ruined that also, since you removed WEGO TCP/IP.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I guess some of us must just face the facts. Some things will be fixed, and some is part of their game design, and thus will not change. As Steve said, if the fetures that are game breakers are in the last catagory, this game might not be for us. Seems I end in that one (I enjoy playing vs humans, and no WEGO in TCP/IP is a game breaker for me).

    Oh well, there are other developers out there. Just hard to accept it and let my fav franchise turn into.. this...

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    Those who are not having a problem with RT are probably not facing good human opponents, or using the best tactics possible, or playing well designed scenarios.

    No. No. And No.

    I cant play human opponents. PBEM is out of the question, the bug ridden TCP/IP RT is out of the question, and my fav game mode, WEGO MP, is not even IN CMSF:

    I have no problem breezing over an apparently brain dead opponent in the scenarios supplied with the game, and I do not call myself an expert tactician or anything. In fact, I would say the scenarios are poor, instead of good, just because of that.

    This game, gets old, REAL fast.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    And yes, the people that didn't like CMx1 games pointed to these harsh reviews and said "see, the game sucks because this one review says it does" while ignoring all the other reviews that said the opposite. It's selective reasoning and it's to be expected since it's the most common form of reasoning out there.

    Steve

    At what time is it *your* reasoning that becomes *selective reasoning*, considering that most reviews has been mediocre? Or does that never happen?
    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Feltan:

    Those people, and the Gamespot reviewer, should stick with a game that suits them: Barbie's Pony Adventure.

    *sigh* Yes, ofcos, its the reviewrs fault for "dissing" your fav game, they just dont "get it", right?

    Funny how many ppl that does not "get it". And funny how GS were competent when they reviewed CMx1, and gave rave reviews. But the moment they point out obvious flaws that has been said time and time again on this forum, they can only review kids games etc.

    Great post.

    0

    Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bigduke6:

    [QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have to agree, the Russians have for years, only showed their incompetence in Checnya. Only thing they are better at, is to use utter force, with no regards civiliance etc, which the US atleast *trys* to in Iraq.

    End of the day, the sheer might of the russian forces, combined with their ruthless use of force and strategy, managed to subdue the rebels.

    In no shape or form could this be seen as a "text book" reference on how to combat insurgents.

    I could not disagree more. The Russians have, by most standards, won the war. If that is not an arguement for following a particular military strategy, then there is no such thing.

    </font>

    0

    Strykers...and Why I thank god I am not Stryker Infantry

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I have to agree, the Russians have for years, only showed their incompetence in Checnya. Only thing they are better at, is to use utter force, with no regards civiliance etc, which the US atleast *trys* to in Iraq.

    End of the day, the sheer might of the russian forces, combined with their ruthless use of force and strategy, managed to subdue the rebels.

    In no shape or form could this be seen as a "text book" reference on how to combat insurgents.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...