Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Puff the Magic Dragon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    278

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Puff the Magic Dragon

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Steiner14:

    Big disappointment.

    1. US-centric view. Maybe i could live with the modern-warfare setting, if it is fun and really works.

    But what i can't stand, is the US-propaganda-view. Everytime i switch on the TV, i could go mad, about all the lies, US, the West and the NATO.

    Don't want to go into detail. I will definately not buy such a setting.

    2. The story: sorry, but Syria is one of the most hatred countries by Israel. The jews will do everything, to throw it down. And that means, USrael will fight and bleed for it...

    So to me this setting, that the ZOGs (US, NATO) would fight for one of the last really free and independent countries, is simply ridiculous.

    An invasion in Syria to install a ZOG, that could be a realistic setting.

    3. For the second game, it is only mentioned, that the campaign could be played from US-side. :eek:

    I guess BFC underestimates the attractivity of the german side and overestimates the attractivity of the US-side by far.

    BTW: BFC should NOT calculate, a module with British and German troops, in a near-east-setting will sell well. The oposition in Europe against the US is big and in Germany it is HUGE.

    i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included).

    Only to give BFC a feeling about the potential attractivity of such a setting...

    :(

    :mad:

    You realy dare to call yourself a German??? You a..f...k. You better never cross my way, Freundchen. Racism and antisemitism has no place in Germany, and it never seriously had before this dick from Austria turned Germany in a dictatorship.

    Hitler was no German, and Third Reich is not Germany. Ever tried to build something up for Deutschland, for your country? Do something senseful except shaving your head!

    0

    Cat 3.4 Drivers For ATI

    in Combat Mission - Tech Support

    Posted

    Originally posted by Scipio:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Douglas Rudd:

    Don't get them, white text is still missing. Time to dump ATI :(

    Doug

    Why blame ATI? The CM graphics engine is 4 years old. Compared to fast develoment in graphic-card-tech, it's like running Windows95 on a modern computer system. </font>
    0

    Sudden spotter HQ change for morters, annoying!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Foxbat:

    1) The graphic engine is great, and mod-friendly. What more can you ask for? 2) "And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time" so? It's a wargame not a 1st-person shooter, and I still think CMBO looks great with the after-market mods.

    The graphic engine is BS, it is clumsy and doesn't seem to make any use of modern hardware and software techniques to increase the quality and permformance of the graphics, not even of techniques that were modern two years ago. I can play the newest games with all bells and wistles in high resultion on my PC without any problems, while it is a pain to play a larger battle like 'to the volga'. BTW, you should not mix up the graphic engine and the texture quality.

    WWB_99, many of the units are only minor variations of the same model. It's fine that they are all in, but you shouldn't wave the 900+ flag to high. BTW, the graphic I love most is the display of aircrafts. From the 70 pages of changes substract all the CMBO bugs and errors. As for example the disperse of artillery that is fired without LOS.

    0

    Sudden spotter HQ change for morters, annoying!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sergei:

    I think that all is very gamey that you are planning of!

    In many real battles thoughtless movements of HQ teams ended up in the officers arguing over command of support teams.

    Officer Hey you mortar guys over there! Stop listening to orders of that officer on the ridge, you are now under MY command!

    Mortar Team But sir, you are standing in the middle of trees behind a hill, so you can't spot the enemy like Lieutenant Morris is doing now...

    Officer (in anger) No excuses! I'm nearer to you than he is, so I own you!

    You should consider a career as author smile.gif .

    However, I'm often surprised about the constructios that people use to explain away that BTS has made an error. CM is a good game, otherwise I wouldn't play it since years, but CMBO is a game full of errors and flaws, CMBB is a bit better, but if I consider that they had two years of time!?!

    Let's look at the artillery system, the part with the most changes (BTS' words). What was changed? Delays are longer, a small random factor was added, and fireplans, what only mean that a order is locked and executed with fixed delay. Can I select different ammo now? Where are explosive or shrapnell shells? How about star shells? Why is a smoke screen not influenced by the wind? Why need my spotter an extra delay if he just orders +100m into a wood without LOS? Why can my off-map rockets and mortars exceed there maximum range? etcetcetcetc

    The graphic engine is still the same as in CMBO, even if they now use Hi-res textures, and it was already outdated in CMBO. And two years in graphic development is a VERY long time.

    How long will BTS work on the engine rewrite? three years, or maybe four? They had better spared the two yours of development for CMBB and invested it into the big rewrite.

    [ October 06, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

    0

    Artillery delay - why only for fireplans?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by wwb_99:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99:

    One thing that must be kept in mind is that while there are all sort of realistic abilities one could give arty, it must be balanced with the Borg spotting and universal eye of the player.

    Making spotters too flexible might well make arty way too dominant in this game.

    WWB

    Okay, but why make them less flexible? The argument with borg spotting is not unjustified, but it can be simply avoided to make the spotter 'gamey'. He can order delays or pauses - maybe he can even order each turn to hold fire til the next turn. But this works only as long as he don't move, so the Spotter must stay all the time on the same place with LOS to his target zone. Well, that would be at least a compromise between realism and playability.</font>
    0

    Artillery delay - why only for fireplans?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I think that's a good idea. I'm no artillery expert, but it sounds realistic to me. Just in one of my battles I had this situation - there was a place on the map, I had bet my ass that the enemy will show up there. Well, and indeed he did. But if now want to fire my artillery, I have a delay of 4-5 minutes. If I would be able to set my artillery in the first minutes on a target, I can call the strike when I need it. Isn't that the common practice?

    0

    BTS - Quick battle question

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I thought it should be now possible to preset the

    number and disperse of the VLs, and also the friendly map edges for the setup zones (so we can also have the setup zones on the smaller map edges). Am I'm just to stupid to find how to do it, or aren't this features in the game?

    I also thought that the Pioneers don't must be purchased with flamethrowers...but they must. :(

    [ September 19, 2002, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

    0

    CMBO vs CMBB demo - poor scenarios

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Cameroon:

    So rehashing it over and over does what? You can't make them know the opinion more.

    Read what Scipio has said above to Michael. And you can make someone notice that something is important and of common interest when many people express the same/similar opinion.
    The demo in your hands won't magically change. The best that could happen would be a scenario download...
    Oh my god, what a catastrophe this would be! :eek:

    BTW, if you don't like the threat, don't read it. There is a peng threat since years, I don't understand what it is about and what it has to do with CM and why it is not moved to the general forum, but I just ignore it.

    0

    Announcing CMBB Distribution Details

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by MrSpkr:

    Christmas on a crutch! Your a bunch of danged ingrateful whiners, the lot of ya!

    "Oh, my historical accuracy will be off because I'm too bloody dimwitted to read 'WaffenGrenadiers' as 'Waffen SS'!"

    Bah!

    "Oh, my gameplay will suffer because the lack of SS Runes will distract me during critical moments of the battle!"

    Bah!

    "BTS, I know we have all been whining about the release date forever, but now that you have announced concrete distribution plans, it's simply not good enough for us!"

    Bah again, I say!

    Lay the heck off of Steve and company! They've been working their butts off to make CMBB so much more than 'CMBO with T-34's' and now you guys are acting like a bunch of grade-schoolers who can't have another five minutes on the playground. Grow up and deal with the issue. Find an American or Canuck you trust to help you with the problem. Or maybe just ignore it 'cuz it ain't a big deal (please - is anyone REALLY going to walk past your computer screen, point and snicker because your briefing says 'WaffenGrenadiers'? If so, you have far deeper problems than BFC could ever hope to address.)

    Or just drink a nice cool glass of shut the hell up!

    Bunch of ingrates.

    Steve

    You can talk, Mr. America. You don't have any problems with your purchase. I propose you get your game from a good friend in the UK! :rolleyes:

    [ July 10, 2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

    0

    The quest for simpler balancing Rules...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by redwolf:

    I would appreciate it if only people would post who are interested in using rulesets like these. Why do you even bother to respond, it does not serve a purpose for you and it is needlessly cluttering up the thread.

    Thanks.

    Redwolf, It would be helpful if you let us know to which post you answer. :confused:

    [ June 19, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

    0

    The quest for simpler balancing Rules...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I think 'balanced forces' is something that was rarely seen in reality, because it is against the basic principels of warfare. So why the whole complication? Of course, within the game it makes sense to have some kind of guideline, cause otherwise the battles could get boring.

    I prefer to play with Scipio's QB purchase rules. They are simple & more senseful then Fionn's 75/76. For example, I play a battle with many tanks in the medium class, facing many Hellcats and M10. It is the most reaslistic performance I have seen within the CM typical engine limitations.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...