theBrit

Ohhh you keep doing this to us..... talk about keeping us on a hook. Unfair!!!

I still detest this being able to view in detail the enemies positions. This freedom of camera is going to be a bugbear for me, and a god send to others I think. Being a traditional Wargamer I prefer the ability to only see the field from my troops perspective. Being able to fly my camera around, behind, and up close & personal to the enemy is unrealistic.

Hmmm I am slightly confused by this statement, did you BF give them the latest build or an early version? They seem to think its early and unfinished, still needing polish in their words. IGN statement "We've just played through a bit of an early build of the game, and while there's still plenty of polish left to be put on this one, it's looking to be a nice middle ground between wargames and traditional RTS games."

Whether they read my post to pul their collective fingers out we'll never know: Anyway link below: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/768/768907p1.html [ March 01, 2007, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: theBrit ]

Granted it does if you have a hardcopy product, but what about the pure online gamesites. It takes one guy a few nights to play, take notes, grab screenies, compose and then post the article. "Whilst going to press" IGN release review: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/768/768907p1.html [ March 01, 2007, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: theBrit ]

Hmmm there's only been one 'new code' review so far. I wonder why??????

Moon, merely pop up the pre-order and you'll get my support too.

Quite right K9... We've got a day to go, and it wouldn't be right to be seen going back on their word.

I'd love to download them but its that awful Rapidshare...so no thanks!

Did I mention Ive got no patience? thanks for the reply though....

Anyone found any of these elusive creatures yet? Post here when you do... (BF latest code release only) [ February 15, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: theBrit ]

I suppose from what you say it may start moving in the right direction but in later releases. Are you saying Patches, Expansions or TOW2? The only positive at the moment is that me and my online buddies would impose objectives, to spice up the MP game. If certain maps have a village will we make that session 'Capture the village'. The important thing at this stage is that the core engine works well and the Netcode is stable. [ February 14, 2007, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: theBrit ]

Russian biased, I hope BF spotted this and corrected. Bushes dont block LOS! Again I hope this too has been amended otherwise a patch may have to be produced shortly after release.

Good question, if it is it should be on a option time limit, 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 120 seconds only. The flow of the battle should not me compromised.

MP needs to be Objective based to add realism and to avoid the Death Match syndrome. Whether it be defend this position, or attack this village there has to be a purpose and objective other than Kill everything that moves.....

What!!!! That sounds awful.

I much prefer to DL, I've got very little patience!!! lol

Will the game be available to download and purchase in Box form?

Sorry I never worded it correctly. So you have free camera movement, interesting. When I said Fog of War I did mean are you restricted to viewing only the areas of the Map you can see....you appear to have answered my question. Free camera movement, anywhere on the map, even into enemy controlled areas. Thanks!

Thanks for the response, perhaps these details will be teaked in later patches. What about Fog of War when it comes to veiwing from the enemies perspective? Is it an option?

RTT! I like that.... As I think of RTS as the AoE style games.

As a Marketing Executive in my previous role I am aware of the fine line people must tread but there is also highlighting positives and overall consistency in the statements you release. To me its quite clear that Realism is a major selling point for this game as this website statement highlights. "Real Time Combat Simulation – Realistic shell ballistics, armor penetration calculations and damage effects coupled with destructible environments, trenches, fortifications and individually tracked weapons, equipment, ammo and vehicles." So saying: "Theatre of War is not going to be the most realistic wargame out there because that's not the design goal" is negative and implies ever so slightly thats its not a priority. A statement like this would have perhaps been better and would have placated both the Realism and BF fans alike; "Our design goal was to combine both realism & enjoyable gameplay in this unique Real Time Combat Simulation. We are confident that we have achieved this and know that TOW will be the leader in its genre" Its genre being a unique angle of RTS gameplay.

Its not a debate, I am asking why the Enfield and Grenades have extended ranges thats all! If BF say its because of so and so....then thats it, period. As for the the ability to view from the enemies perspective thats important to me as I'd prefer if thats optional.

Really is it not, then name a WW2 RTS that is more realistic? I thought that this was one of your marketing features, its realism! Its one of the reasons why I am looking forward to it. :confused:

Sorry to press you guys at BF but any comments on the above?