KNac
-
Posts
588 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by KNac
-
-
Standard Operational Proccedure. Kinda what you ask for.
DOn't worry about targeting etc. it will improved with patches I think. Is not something that can't be fixed/changed w/o adding additional features.
-
Yes, this is what I think. And should be next BFC movement. Returning of the "will be released when its done".Originally posted by monkeezgob:Alternatively, the whole scenario could change if their next title is released in a more finished state and gets glowing reviews right out of the box.
I don't know which was the agreegement and contractual obligations that BF took with Paradox, I don't know why Paradox would pressure to release the game (they have a long story of releasing unfinished stuff too, but patch it afterwards, funny enough lol), when it was independently produced, so don't know which extra impact would have in their pockets if not released earlier. An other reason may just be that BF crew needed to release the game because where running out of fund too. But with the current cash flow with this release, they should prevent releasing an unfinished game next time, what in definitive would mean better overall reviews.
I don't spect a lot of reviewers (mainstream specially) to give a good score to the game, cause they just "don't get it". Has happened again with CM or other well done wargames. This issue may be even worse now that seems that reviewers are each day more and more unproffessional, and base their reviews or purely subjective opinions and don't inform theirshelves at all. It's a shame, but it happens.
-
Wow, awesome idea. Also add different icons for sniper teams etc.
-
Indeed, units pick other mates weapons. I've seen it happen with MG and sniper teams. And can't recall now, but I would say with RPG happens the same.
The mates must be close to each one though, if not they won't pick fallem comrades weapons & ammo.
-
Someone said that the game has sold allready more than CMBO and CMBB combined, so guess... The impact of reviews is usually exagerated, it depends on what type of game and its target market how much effect it will have, but overall, it's not that hard, specially having demos for trial before buying.
I think is more harmfull that some bugs prevent people from playing, or make playability lower than should be. I'm not talking even about features that could be improved (TacAI, pathfinding...), but plain bugs. These are real stoppers.
Bugous releases are bad. Allways. Specially when the company is planning follow-ons, releasing expansion packs and new titles. Some new users who bought this game, which don't know about BF history, will be turned off by this first release. I hope though, that nowadays, with the Internet being an usual thing, people will check for patches and eventually will be hooked up by the game.
P.S: in very few exceptional cases games are re-reviewed. So don't count on it. For that to happen BF would have to market the game again with a different name and send it to reviewers. Hopefully, as the expansion packs will be marketed individually, in some sort of second stage of game state, when the first expansion pack is released, the game will be reviewed as a whole.
But then the problems will be other, I can see it happen: very few new content for its value, etc etc etc. Usual stuff.
-
I can reenter crew in their vehicles in it was inmovilized, sometimes I've to "stop" any roder and try again a couple of times, but finally whern they "chill" can enter againñ.
-
1) Both. I prefer RT, but sometimes is true it gets overwhelming. As now, RT is finer, cause the issues that exist with pathfinding, TacAI, infantry combat etc. in RT you can fix that on the run issuing new commands etc. but on WeGo you are sold out when you click the run button.
IMo RT with pausing is the best, I just wish the "Paused" message woyuld be moved from teh center and made smaller lol. But on H2H play (haven't done yet, but will at some point when bugs are fixed), you can't pause over TCP/IP, which is backwards IMO, so WeGo is prefered IMO.
The mroe experience with the game the better RT will feel IMO.
2) In open ground... I'm getting used to scout ahead with one squad or two (or teams if you prefer, to risk less), but try to use somekind of cover always -like drain streams or whatever- if possible, that way I usually spot dangerous AT teams. But with most I advance mounted, I think is safer after all, just dismount when is neccessary and always in the safer conditions I can archive.
There has been a lot of talking about this, search the forums.
-
Yes definitively, you have to make StratAI plans to make the AI move their troops. Can't explain much on that as I don't know.
-
It would be ncie if between all we could do some sort of chart for effects on LOS, cover etc.
-
I don't get exactly what you mean, but I think you have to do StratAI plans for the AI to work out somekind of plan (moving, attacking, defending, ambushing or whatevering).
-
Yeah, we want them then.
Call that brand "OPFOR" and put new goodies
-
LOL, you know WeGo is there right? The reason is not running correctly is more due to bugs and other features that are not polished than other thing. And even so, it's not that bad. If you think adding a magic blue bar is gonnma change things, you need serious help. The game Tac-AI is not gonna work better because you don't make the game compute in RT (it has been demonstrated, that if the computer does not have enough proccessing power, RT will slow down, like it does in every game). What is needed is better and more refiend programming which will be done over time.
So guess who is the blind one, at least in this issue.
---
You see, this is a clear example of saying things over and over. And yes, you can argue to them also over and over and it will not make any effect.
-
Vertically the grid doesn't work in 8m scale, just in one "hight" (first level ina building = 1 high, second = 2 hight; don't know how much is it in meters). The trench is one level too I think, and it DOES provide cover, test it, it could give more probably but it does give cover actually. All thsi rather confusing, gonna do some testing.Originally posted by rammer4250:I may be just plain wrong here but...
I just had another revelation. This is concening the trench debate whether trenches are offering any protection. If this center dot thing is correct then if the center dot position is at ground level and not say 8m under ground level then LOS/LOF is being measured from that ground level center dot and therefore any units in the trench are defacto at ground level therefore being able to be seen/shot at. How are the building levels being depicted? Probably by a 3D grid system whereby the center dot (as far as height goes) is at the center of each level. So to fix the trench have a negative grid level.
-
As someone said in other thread: Head ExplodingOriginally posted by thewood:I have a headache
-
I don't get it. In some post Steve said that if a vehicle shows part of the hulk through a wall it will be seen, and if not no (well, he didn't say that exactly but along these lines), and then it could be shoot or not.
Everytime one reads soemthing about LOS/LOF mroe confussion is added to the matter.
-
True, may the game had been more bug-free, and in some cases, able to run. Some better reviews would have been written.Originally posted by kipanderson:Strangely I think many reviewers are more open minded than some of the critics here…. However they are less tolerant of the all the bugs.
-
I fear that these same C2 issues that prevent QB purchasing are behind this.
-
Nice idea Bradley, I agree doing it as a short campaing may be nice, from both sides (camping red & campaing blue). I think this kind of stuff won't appeil MOST (but yes some) die-hard grogs, but for the rest of us could be funny stuff to play.
An other context for blue on blue may be "training excercises and wargames", I know is not very original but is an easy way to justify your scenarios.
Just add some sort "This is a training excercise conducted using lasers etc.", hardly to imagine with all these bullets and explosions going around LOL, but it can be done.
On the original post, it may do for a small infantry action battle, I would try it out as all the scenarios I've played so far had armored elements included in some way or an other.
-
I played as red and got a very very similar result to The Lounch.
Nice to see you have reduced the threshold, I'll wait until you upload the new version to play again.
As "Red" it was nice to see how the blue attacked. It all was in a very unordered and caotic fashion, but it did work to an extend. They took the first objective with casualties (or at least, not much mroe than I took when I played blue), looky smoke screen produced by a Stryker while it was being shoot helped, but hey, they did it.
They putted a lot of firepower into the building and managed to crush my AT teams fast -in the end I managed to knock out 3 strykers-. The second objective was an onslaugh for their infantry though, they asembled on the other side of the road in the open. And while they advanced were crushed, a final barrage just whiped them all, it resulted in almost all US infantry whiped out. At the end there was a weird situation where I holded a couple of hurted squads and HQ and the enemy had a lot of vehicles going around but just one squad (damaged quite badly) and a HQ alive.
-
The problem is that "damage" has been allready done. It's very hard to recover from a bad release. And the worse problem, is that next product, will suffer the collateral damage of the first bad release due to consumers losing confidence in company.Originally posted by Bigduke6:Once CMSF gets functional, it will be interesting to see how much value the market decides is in that game.
We will see though, how "bad" has been this release with bugs and that all.
-
Haha, true, but I think this case may be oen exception. Anyway if you read combat reports from the battle or other wars in the area you may extract same conclussion.Originally posted by Normal Dude:Jomni, no offense, and I enjoyed the movie, but movies are not a source of information.
Fighters = Hezbollah
Combatants = Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq
I think these are fair examples. I don't think there is way to suimulate the scenario with current forces, somalis were just to crappy (come on 1000:19 ratio in MOUT, that should say it all, even if the US had much more firepower).
-
Understood, but at some point it gets tirefully for all. Discombobulatory haha, nice word will have to search translation.
Do you realize that even if you made the same points over and over to the infinite that wouldn't bring you the game you want? I mean, in your case, for example, you disagree with inner game design decissions and the core engine, how things are deal (if I've read right in some of your posts); you don't disagree with bugs or things that are far from polished, but the way the game deals with things.
They are not going to go back 4 years and make a new game that would sweet you, fortunatly or not. Now, if you were disappointed cause of the bugs, that would be an other thing entirely, but in your case I don't see much point on repeating your arguments (I'm not telling you to shut up anyway, if it would look like that, you can do whatever pleases you mroe off course), and more once you know that the developers know them (which I think that from posts since the early stage of development they do).
-
What I don't get is why people must keep repeating things over and over. One of the first things I was educated about when I was a kid it was that saying things one time should be enough for comprenhension.
There radiques the difference between criticism and plain ranting. Is like when kinds scream louder to seek attetion, a rather inmature attitude I would say.
P.S: this statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular, was just thinking loud.
-
when a tool for unpacking the game files is released by BF you will be abkle to mod skins and all that like you used to do for CMx1
Have the reviews dealt a fatal blow?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted