BeauCoupDinkyDau
-
Posts
1,733 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BeauCoupDinkyDau
-
-
Sly, gaming and real life are two WAY different things. Are you trying to say that dropping guys in the field is the same thing as blowing up a series of zeros and ones?!
-
I hope they attempt to exceed CC. By the looks of it, they are trying to copy it for the most part.
The problem is that CC was initially built as an infantry game that included a few tanks for fire support (and added challenge). This game seems to be in love with its tanks rather than it's troops.
Well, as I've said: I'll hold judgment until having some time with the demo.
-
It does not have to be historically perfect for me, just credible. Most of the screens and info look promising, but some cast serious doubts over if this game can be historically credible or not.
Bumper-car tank battles are not credible.
-
Thanks Moon. Always there for your customers!
Mutiplay is standard anymore. But turning a game into a sandbox for it's fanbase is what keeps people coming back for more.Originally posted by TuuSaR:Multiplayer is make or break, with todays Internet, games have to be all around it.
-
I'm going to withhold final judgment until I mess around with the demo.
-
Uh, yeah. I’ve addressed this twice in a total of three posts (to no avail the first time—so a second attempt is not out of the question). If you think that’s going on and on, then you’ve got a distorted view of the world my friend.Hey, you're the one going on and on about bumper car tank matches, as if no two WWII tanks ever touched the same patch of ground.
-
Cool. Thank you sir!Originally posted by Moon:You should be able to easily because that mission might make it into the demo actually.
There are a lot of open areas on that particular map, but the screens focus on the action in the little hamlet where the mission starts off. The AI pushed hard into that village which explains the short engagement ranges (and a few great ambush placements by the AI which I'll show soon).
I'll also put up some shots with the new realistic engagement ranges that have been implemented on the blog in the next days.
Martin
-
Maybe they'll create a map just for you with nothing but wide open spaces where you just line up your clankies 2 clicks apart and have it out. You know, just like it always happened back in WWII. </font>Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vader's Jester:
Meh. More bumper-car tank matches.
The more screenshots I see, the less interested I become. Definitely going to have to check out that demo before I decide.
-
Meh. More bumper-car tank matches.
The more screenshots I see, the less interested I become. Definitely going to have to check out that demo before I decide.
-
Cool. Sounds good.
I hate that we still cannot see aircraft though. Oh well, gotta same something good for CMx2-WWII. :cool:
-
A mission editor is what will make or break this game in the long run.
-
Exactly. :cool:
-
He said expansion. Uh, huh, huh, huh...uhhhh, huh, huh, huh...Originally posted by RMC:Only naked in outdoor showers in the vicinity of mission objectives...oh, wait, no on-board mortars. Scratch that. Maybe in the...expansion.
-
True, as did I.
You have to understand something though. Close Combat (the original) was an infantry game. Tanks and heavy equipment only came in small numbers to support infantry operations. Part of this had to do with the scale of the map, and part of it was probably the designer’s desire to create a combat game with an emphasis on infantry battles.
By CC3, the designers started to move in a new direction. AFVs of all types began to become the focus of the game; tanks in particular. The problem with that is the game was never made to do this. It was built around small unit infantry tactics. When used in that capacity, the occasional close support tank made all the sense in the world. But the CC battles you refer to are from CC3 and on, where the franchise began to drop out of favor with grogs and eventually with everyone else. There’s a reason for that.
Tanks simply do not engage one another like that except in rare or exceptional situations (think bocage country in France). So to use CC as a justification for some of the battles being designed for FoW is just silly. Your game is not an infantry simulator. From what I can see, it's combined arms with an emphasis on tanks, and you’re using a game built to be an infantry simulator (CC) as a guide to build your tank game. That does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Will the code be open to modification by the gaming community?
-
So do I. :cool:Originally posted by Moon:real-time tactical (I like that phrase)
-
Didn't a few different military organizations use the original CM games as a training tool?Originally posted by Sixxkiller:I think the military would be wise to use this as a tool before sending troops over.
-
-
Pictures like these give me pause...
...
...
...
...
...okay, now I'm done.
So, how many historical tank battles does 1C think looked like a bumper-car arena when they were finished?
Exactly how many instances did enemy forces allow tanks to flank them at five meters?
It looks like an armored ball gone bad. "Now announcing the prestigious Mr. & Mrs. T-34/85!"
-
Ooooh. We get to plant IEDs in CM:SF? Can we remote detonate them, or will they be more like a mine?
-
Not if you met some people you ended up caring about.Originally posted by Angryson:All these photos make me miss Iraq. Is that wrong?
-
That's because 90% of all AVF photos you have seen are taken in non-combat conditions; so the travel locks being in place are prudent at that time.
-
Well here, Jussi. If you don't like the range on that one, then this pic should suit you just fine. Sheesh!
There, are you happy now?! :mad:
-
There are some decent engagment ranges after all:
-
We're glad you're not, either.Originally posted by ComradeP:I'm not American (and personally, I'm glad that I'm not)
Pink Mist?
in Theatre of War
Posted
So empathy counts for nothing then? I always considered the human experience to be a shared one.