Ant
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ant
-
-
I've always thought that the greatest problem in modifying units in games such as this was getting the AI to use them properly.
I was a bit dissapointed at the lack of Mountain troops, but if they aren't coded in to the game then the AI won't be able to use them properly anyway. It sort of makes them pointless.
-
ok. Thanks for the reply. I'm sure I'll enjoy this game anyway. Mountain troops or not
-
Ant never has minimized the role of anyones Marines, he was simply pointing out that Mountain units played a larger role. If Marines are included; as they are and should be; then Mountain units should also be included.
Exactly. For all the part played by marines in WW1 then multiply that by ten for the role played by mountain troops.
When I looked at the unit list for this game I was happy to see marines in there, until I noticed that there was no mountain troops. I simply can't see why you'd include marines in a WW1 game but not mountain troops.
-
Thanks for the info. That's great.
Any chance of putting some mountain troops in?
-
Hi Bill
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, I'm aware of roles played by marines in WW1 but, as you mentioned, it was never a big role. On the other hand Mountain divisions played a huge part in the fighting in the mountainous regions of the Italian and Balkan theatres. Most of the major European nations involved in WW1 had very large specialised Mountain formations, they were pretty de rigueur during the WW1 period.
I suppose I'm not really questioning the inclusion of marines as much as the exclusion of mountain troops essentially. I think they're far more deserving of a role in a strategic WW1 game than marines are. If we can get both then great, if it's an either/or then we should have mountain troops without doubt.
-
Just looking at the unit list and I see marines there. Odd choice for WW1 I wasn't aware that there were really any major actions involving marines. Gallipoli, the biggest amphibious operation, was mainly standard infantry.
On the other hand there was quite a lot of use of mountain troops on both the Italian and balkans fronts, yet they aren't in.
I'd have thought that mountain troops were a far more appropriate unit to have included instead of marines.
Are we being a bit Americanocentric with this game?
-
Yeah, I know; a bit premature given that the game has only just been announced, but I don't really constantly check up on game developments, so if possible is there any estimate as to when I should check back on this to see if it's close to release?
As it's based on an existing engine I should imagine it will take considerably less time that a 'from scratch' game but I've still no idea how long that'll be: three months, six months, a year?
-
The best portrayal of urban warfare I've ever played was the old original classic Xcom game 'UFO enemy unknown'Originally posted by rich12545:Imo, CMAK handles urban warfare better than any game I've ever seen. And I've played the game or demo for a lot of them.
Well modelled towns, buildings with stairs, rooms, plenty of areas that you could blow up. Even civilians getting in the way so you couldn't just toss a grenade blindly into a house...well, you could, but it was considered a bit naughty to kill civilians
Yes, I know it's not strictly speaking a wargame, but I'm surprised that not a single game released since has come even close to such a great depiction of urban combat.
-
Games releases seem to have become more cyclical too. A few years ago I'd buy one game a month, and there was always something around to buy that I'd like. Now I can go months without buying a single game, because nothing interests me....then about four good games will all be released at the same time.
-
I won't be buying CMSF. It was a huge disappointment for me when the details of the game's setting were finally made known. Not that I don't like modern day combat, I do, but US V Syria
If they were going to delve into the realms of the hypothetical then they could have come up with something far more interesting than this.
The only reason I can think for the choice made is that BFC are hoping to sell it to the US army as a tactical simulator. If that happens and they make big money out of it then good for them, maybe they can then make a game with more appeal, or bring out the promised add-on modules to expand it into something more interesting.
-
I have to say that that's one of the most eloquent and enlightening vents I've ever read.Originally posted by LtCol West:Reading all of the posts got me going, so I had to vent.
[/QB]
-
No. Not me. I just go there for the airshows.
-
Thanks for the info. They've got a load of stuff like this up at Duxford, as I'm sure Shmavis will attest
-
As well as Moscow I stayed in Rostov. Good hotel, dirt cheap and lots of stuff to see and do.
I found eating out in Moscow was very cheap too, but then we usually ate out well away from the city centre in one of the suburbs, where we were staying in an old soviet era appartment block. Even in the centre of Moscow the food was only about the same as I'd pay at home.
-
They had lots of stuff running around when I was there earlier this year.
I have no idea what this is:
-
Russia isn't expensive. It's only Moscow that's pretty expensive, and St Petersburgh too; even then it's only really the metropolitan centres. The rest of Russia is pretty cheap.Originally posted by Runyan99:Why is Russia so expensive to visit, while the economy is so underdeveloped? I thought the country was cash poor.
-
That's the way I did it, twice. Had a thoroughly fantastic time.Originally posted by Bigduke6:I am going to generalize here.
The way to visit Russia is to be friends with a real person over there who knows the ropes and can run flak for you. Russians are as a group far more friendly than westerners, and if you are interested in their history usually there are enthusiasts who are delighted to take you under their wing.
-
I live 40 mins away and it's a regular haunt of mine. I'm more interested in the aviation side of things though and I'm usually there for the airshows. The hangars are pretty interesting too.
-
I'd dispute that statement totally. If you'd said that that's what the vast majority of US gamers want then I'd agree, but to say that the vast majority of all gamers in the whole world want to play US forces then I'd say you were wrong, or at least I'd be extremely surprised if you weren't wrong.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The choice of US centric for the main titles is simply because that is what the vast majority of gamers want. Since sales keep us in business, we can not ignore this fact.
Steve
-
Is it true that this game was called 'Shock Force' because BFC knew the effect it would have on the forums?
-
I'm long sighted. How long do I have to sit in front of the TV for my eyesight to become normal?
-
I seem to remember a discussion related to this a couple of years ago about CMBO. It seems that the CM player, and to a certain extent the computer too, are willing to accept far higher casualties and take greater risks than was the case in reality, thus leading to higher instances of closing to lethal range of the enemy.It is a bit of a mystery of CMAK/BB, why combat distances become so dwarfed. I have often wondered why actually. The average combat distance of WWII in Europe was 350 metres according to the Germans. CMAK/BB combat seem to occur at 50 metres on a regular basis. -
May be is it Wartime command battle for Europe 1939-45 by Codemasters ? preview summer 2005. www.codemasters.de/wartimecommand/ </font>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:yes thanks
That was it!
I did think I read somewhere on the board here a long time ago
that somebody "official" at BFC commented that the CMx2 game engine would be a comparable quality to those images shown at that preview site for Wartime Command...
They do look nice and It SURE would be GREAT to play a nice looking BFC game with GREAT game play and historical realism that will provide a tactical and strategic challenge AND look provide those kinds of stunning visual and that level of graphic detail at the same time!
I'm sure Steve and the gang realize we are ALL looking forward to such a joy!
thanks!
-tom w
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by patboy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
I am thinking of screen shot of a European town and a stone a rock bridge over VERY nice looking water in a River below in from a competitors game currently in production I think.
Can anyone remind me of the post or the reference or link to that game, which I cannot remember the tittle off?
-tom w
-
Hang on a minute here. Are you claiming that you are/were a member of the IDF?Hey!i just wanted to tell that the MREKAVA tank is highly effective in urban warfare, and i say it from my own experience, i participated is many operations which involved urban fighting, and i tell you, we gave them hell!!
In that case I think the Isrealis are seriously turning out some very undertrained and ill informed troops if you genuinely think that one Merkava could take out a whole WW2 army.
So you killed lots of Palestinians but you don't want to offend any who might be here?i hope i'm not offendingany palestinian members
of the forums.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Naval warfare - sub attacks a bit unrealistic?
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
I'm just playing through my first campaign game at the moment and I've been getting the impression that submarines are a bit overpowered to be honest.
They should be little more than convoy raiders with minimal combat ability and yet my large surface forces lose a lot of strength to them. It seems a bit unrealistic to me. Why bother having battleships, cruisers and dreadnoughts when you can just churn out submarines.