Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 76mm

  1. Yes, agreed, although I can't imagine it would be very easy to find accuracy data for every obscure WWII-era sidearm, or weapon in general.
  2. OK, but it sounds like modelling new weapons is not the only difficulty; rather figuring out exactly which weapon was used by whom, and when, is what takes up a lot of time.
  3. You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces? Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that? But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich. Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous. For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.
  4. While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making? Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research). Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them? For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions? Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines? Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor? If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products. I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart. With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.
  5. But of course I've never said that BF should do anything other than what they want, or should choose to focus their business model on satisfying my particular preferences. What I have said is that when game developers fail to provide content that particular users want for several years, those users lose interest in the product (at least I have). In my view, not providing an initial module for a base game for several years after its release--and even then with most content recycled from earlier games--is a clear indication of BF's priorities. That's fine, and I understand the business logic, but when their priorities diverge so significantly from mine, it is time to for me to move on (or I should say "move back", given that I plan to spend more time with ancient games such as ASL, SP, and CMBB). While I expect that the module for CMRT will be released in the next year or two (making it 6 or 7 years after release of CMRT), at this point I don't expect to ever see games covering the Eastern Front in earlier periods, which IMHO are more the interesting periods. The war on the Western front is more or less fully covered by this point (other than the last few months and North Africa), so to provide similar coverage for the Eastern front BF would have to release three East Front games in a row ('43, '43, '41), which is not going to happen.
  6. This is exactly right, they were truly "pulling their weight", and more.
  7. No, but they could be accused of biting off more than they could chew. The long wait for the infantry patch is one example, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, a gap of six years between the release of a base game and the first module for it is...well...very lame.
  8. More or less; the resolution with the GoG version is better than what I could get without it, and acceptable, but I still can't get full-width 1920x1080 without at least slight stretching. The stretching is especially noticeable and I will have to see if I prefer playing with no stretching and a narrower window or slight stretching and full-width.
  9. Of course I can understand why people like CMx2, but I certainly wouldn't call it "full spectrum". Looking at my favorite theater, the Eastern front, it is ridiculously "narrow spectrum"--a few months with a subset of units on a limited part of the front. I would call CMx2 Hi-Fidelity, Narrow Spectrum. SP, ASL, and yes, CMBB are far more full-spectrum than CMx2 and that's why I'm going back to them; well, that and the fact that I just find them more fun. All of these games are what I would call Medium Fidelity, Very High Spectrum. And I'm fine with that...
  10. I need to mess around with the other settings a bit...with aspect correction disabled, it is full screen but looks a bit stretched out.
  11. It is "full-screen", but still probably 25% of the screen on the left and right is black. But much better than it was. Is yours true full screen? In the dx utility, I've set the display mode to "same as desktop" (which is 1920x1080). There are a bunch of other settings that I don't understand, so I haven't messed with them... The GoG version is totally legit and was announced here by BF.
  12. I was so excited to hear about the better resolution with the GoG version that I just went ahead and bought it...it is much better than the legacy version, so thanks for the heads up!
  13. Sounds like I need to drop the $6 bucks for the GoG version...will do that in the next few days, thanks.
  14. Can you tell me how you got it to run so well in 1920x1080? I can get it to run, but either it runs in a square resolution which makes me feel like I'm looking at the game through a keyhole, or it is stretched horizontally enough to make it really irritating for me. Have you figured out how to make it run "wider" without horizontal stretching?
  15. Thanks; I've just looked at it again and it still seems to lack a lot of things included in ASL which make it a much richer experience, and not much development since it launched. And because the AI in most games kind of sucks, I usually play hotseat vs myself in all games (other than the few games I play MP), so don't see it being a big issue with ASL.
  16. I was actually a beta tester for that game...it was close, but no cigar. At this point I forget what the issues were, but I definitely hated the interface. Also at that time, IIRC there was no editor, which was a deal breaker for me. But I haven't looked at the game in a few years now, I'll go back and take a look and see how it has ripened. Thanks for the reminder!
  17. Difficult to play solo, but that's how I played as a kid, so hopefully it will work out OK; plus with VASL if I want to get into MP that will not be a problem. I will play VASL exclusively and with VASL cost is not really an issue, especially since I only play certain types of Eastern Front battles and so would only need a couple of the modules in any event. Plus I don't need any scenarios at all because I don't play them--I create all of my own battles based on a home-brewed campaign. My ASL stuff had also been in storage for about 35 years until a couple of months ago; even now I've lost/thrown away most of the paper stuff and will stick with VASL. And I'm sure I'll buy the CMRT module whenever it comes out, but I'm shifting my focus elsewhere. I'm sick to death of gaming a very narrow slice of June-August 1944 for five years. By now I've lost any confidence that the other games covering the East Front in '41-'43 will ever come out with this engine, if at all, so if I need to go back to ASL for the full Russian Front experience then that is what I will do. I'm also playing around with SP, which also has very extensive coverage of the Russian Front (and everything else). I don't expect to be bored.
  18. Not six years yet, but looks to be six years (or more) by the time it comes out. Yes, it will cover the fighting to Berlin. And no, it looks like no minors or partisans, presumably because that would require making something that hadn't already been created for another game. Here is an extract of what will be included from a long-ago CMRT bones post: **************** Waffen SS, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and Volkssturm forces as well as the progression of standard Heer formations Soviets didn't change much after Bagration because, well, they didn't need to! Plus, it would have been very disruptive to do so. However, there's still a few new things we can give you to play with. The big one is the Lend Lease armed tank forces sporting Valentines and Shermans. New Regions that are tailored to the different battlefields fought over in the final months of the war Winter terrain, graphics, and weather effects New terrain to better portray the area generally, but also its ruined state Massive Berlin map 2 Campaigns and a bunch of stand alone battles Oh, and some crazy late war German stuff that nobody ever cares anything about ***************
  19. Yes, that would be it for me as well. I don't see it happening.
  20. I made no such assumption, have never claimed or conjectured that BF is in danger of going out of business, and never "weighed BF's business" on the modules that I'm interested in. BF can do what they want, and long as they continue to do so, I don't see them going out of business. What I have said, and I'll repeat for good measure, is that as an East Front aficionado, I've lost interest in this franchise because BF doesn't provide me with what I want. I don't know how I can be any more clear?
  21. Of course that was a transition to a whole new engine (which by the way, was supposed to allow vastly accelerated release of modules and games with the new engine). In any event, for me personally six years between the release of a base game and the first module for it is simply not enough to maintain my interest, especially when most of that module's content will consist of re-hashed material from other games. Disappointing. YMMV.
  22. Yes, I'm afraid I'm pretty much there. After waiting what, six years, for the first CMRT module I have pretty much lost interest. Even when it comes out, most of the content will just be recycled materials from other games (German units, Lend-Lease equipment, etc.), and apparently won't include East Front flavor such as partisans. I will probably buy it, but without much enthusiasm, and I doubt that I'll ever see the promised Kursk and earlier games. I've decided to focus my tactical gaming on games that provide more coverage of the Russian Front, which right now means Steel Panthers and even *gasp* ASL. I've looked at going back to CMBB but can't really do it. Sad...
  23. I don't really disagree agree with you there, but while he's working on the game, the dev should not sell it as a finished product. If he does so, and then absolutely refuses to engage with/respond to his disappointed paying customers for ten years, of course he is going to generate some hostility.
  24. I see...so his game, his vision, and his way of doing things is to release very expensive games that don't work, not to fix them, and to never engage with the suckers that bought the game? Gee, that's an interesting approach for a game dev, but probably not sustainable, since at least from my "limited consumer view" it is not too far from fraud and completely inexcusable. The very least he could have done is to come on to one of the forums to say something like "Guys, really sorry, bit off more than I could chew, working on the problems but it could take ten years or more to do so..." (or whatever his excuse was). Would that really have been so difficult?
  • Create New...