Jump to content

76mm

Members
  • Posts

    1,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    76mm got a reaction from scottie in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
    Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
    You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
    Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
  2. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from sttp in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  3. Like
    76mm got a reaction from scottie in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  4. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
    Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
    You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
    Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
  5. Like
    76mm reacted to Pelican Pal in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    To nitpick here that is exactly what we've been able to do for nearly a decade. You can cook up a scenario with Elite Insurgent infantry riding Bradleys into battle against a horde of conscripted German infantry manning technical if you wanted. The well done Command and Control system of CM makes it a piece of cake too. The real limit is the launcher

    Regardless its good to hear that brought some new weapons with them. I was under the presumption that they were fully armed from existing U.S. and British stock.
     
    My broader point was the standalone scenarios, campaigns, and master maps are of little interest to me after the base game in a series is released. At which point I would much rather just have access to new weapons and vehicles with which to make scenarios of my own  or play in multiplayer. To the point that I would purchase an "early version" with just a basic availability of new stuff and be fine waiting however many years/months it was to get a patch with the campaign/scenarios/more obscure TO&E.

    Because when it comes down to it I'm going to use the baked in scenarios and campaign system relatively rarely compared to the usefulness of having Panzer IIIs in CM:RT.
  6. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Pelican Pal in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  7. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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. 
  8. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from Holien in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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. 
  9. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from LukeFF in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  10. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  11. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from FlammenwerferX in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  12. Like
    76mm reacted to Pelican Pal in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    You have an issue like the Engine 4 upgrade (paid) essentially breaking infantry interaction with fortifications for months on end. Not that fortifications are that fleshed out in CM, but the community response was very measured. "Haters" as a group seem largely fictitious outside of like 1-2 actual people. Especially so if you ignore the time period directly around the original CM:SF release. Which I can sympathize with to an extant because man... that release.

    What CM is, is a game system that is pretty close to being fantastic but is often just pretty good. Which is in many ways is more frustrating than if it were just crap.

    - There is a powerful scenario editor that lets you do a lot

    However, it is just weak enough to prevent designers from easily doing really interesting things.

    -  CM has pretty solid 1:1 design

    Except that commitment to 1:1 can often result in unrealistic situations. Like personnel in a half-track sitting bolt upright when hunkering down slightly would save them from being hit, or weird LOS issues.

    - CM has some fun campaigns

    Yet, with rare exceptions, they don't feel particularly connected.

    - CM has pretty good content

    If you are interested in a very specific setting/time period you are likely going to have to wait years to see it.
     
    CM does a lot right, which makes what it does poorly all the more annoying.
     
  13. Like
    76mm reacted to General Jack Ripper in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    If it's an interactive war movie you're looking for, then playing WEGO with the ability to really get up close and personal with the camera, and also watch cool action on instant replay should be the motivating factor. Your statement here doesn't make sense.
    Be honest. Playing in realtime mode requires you to separate yourself from the minute detail to maintain overall situational awareness.
    Unless you prefer playing with little more than a platoon at a time.
    Everyone I see who records gameplay in real time is forced to remain in a birds-eye view, with maybe a brief zoom into a key piece of action before being forced to zoom back out to maintain awareness. If your idea of an interactive war movie is to watch unit icons march across a field, maybe you are the one looking for an animated 3d board game.
  14. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from sttp in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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?
  15. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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.
  16. Like
    76mm reacted to landser in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Well, nothing I did really, and not sure it will work with a 'legacy' version. As mentioned I got the GOG version since I built my new PC without the foresight to include an optical drive, rendering the fact I held on to my disks all the years useless. So I bought CMAK and CMBB on GOG ($12 total). These include a DX utility in the install directory. I installed the game, let it go to default res and ran the game once so it created whatever necessary files or folders it might need to. Exit game, ran the DX utility and chose 1920x1080, and I also set the setting right below,  aspect something or other, to disabled and fired it up to fullscreen widescreen. Works splendidly I must say, and I will also say that if not for that, if stuck with a non-native, non 16:9 ratio, that I would not find it quite as charming as I do
    So if you don't have the GOG version I'm not sure if you're able to do the same.  If you go for the GOG version you'll have this included. ANd perhaps it can be imported in to other versions, but not sure of the legalities of this.
  17. Like
    76mm got a reaction from landser in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Sounds like I need to drop the $6 bucks for the GoG version...will do that in the next few days, thanks.
  18. Like
    76mm reacted to landser in Forgot how good these games are   
    Over the weekend I dove in head first and played through three or four CMBB Operations. Good stuff. Running CMBB in 1920x1080 seems like witchcraft. But it all plays great, runs great.
    It brings back so many good memories, starting a battle or operation and seeing the map and reacting like "I remember this one!".
    It plays differently than CMx2 of course, and some things are missed as CMx2 spoiled me in some ways. Spotting, as mentioned, is the biggest difference for me. What I wouldn't give to transpose relative spotting in to CMx1!
    Command delay is a great feature I think, especially on the East Front, where it has a telling effect. I miss the more robust artillery mechanics from the newer games too.
    On the other hand, I like how you can plot indirect fire on areas of the map with no LOS. It was one of my first complaints when playing my first CMx2 game. In CMx1 you can drop rounds for instance anywhere, regardless of LOS. See a crossroads on the map that you want to shell? Have at it. Accuracy is affected as the fall of shot is unobserved perhaps. But it can be done. In CMx2 it's tied too strictly to LOS.
    A perfect example is an AT gun poking through a hedgerow on the other side of a field. You place a mortar in a hedge with LOS to the opposite one and call for fire. Round after round drops 5 feet short. You cannot place the fire just behind the hedge since you cannot see it. 
    Mortar fire for example should be allowed anywhere within the weapon's range, with of course accuracy penalties for unobserved fall of shot. As it is I can't shell that crossroads on my map because I can't see it through the copse of woods. But it's right there on my map! Can't I transmit co-ordinates or something, like over the radio?  Any object should be considered an aiming stake for indirect fire. Even if I know that place is full of enemy, I can't get mortar rounds in there unless I can see the spot. I can't lob rounds over that barn to hit troops behind it if the mortar squad or a spotter cannot see that ground. In CMx1 you can, with varying degrees of accuracy, and that's good in my view.
    Can anyone point me with a link to the best places to grab Operations for CMx1 games?
  19. Upvote
    76mm got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Yes, that would be it for me as well.  I don't see it happening.
  20. Like
    76mm got a reaction from FlammenwerferX in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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. Like
    76mm got a reaction from FlammenwerferX in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    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. Like
    76mm reacted to Glubokii Boy in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Honestly...I don't understand why requests/suggestions for strenthening the BFC line-up has to be so vastely exagerated every time...
    No one is suggestion that BFC should hire "a massive amount of people"...and perhaps move their office to some Manhattan penthouse.
    One...or perhaps a few more guys will be a nice step in the right direction...No need for a massive migration 😎.
    That being said...I understand that the economic side of things has to be taken into account...If they can't afford more people...they can't...unfortunatelly
    but when they can It will indeed be very welcome news to hear... that BFC are strenthening their manpower...It would be a good thing !!
     
    It's a god damn shame that not more people are buying these games...What's wrong with them ?  😉 Why don't they understand that this is the best tactical game avaliable...uummpf, uumpf..
     
     
     
  23. Like
    76mm reacted to Thewood1 in Is there anything that comes close to the CM games?   
    /Rant mode on
    I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.
    I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  
    I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  
    So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.
    /Rant mode off
    One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.
     
    /Rant mode really off
  24. Like
    76mm got a reaction from Chibot Mk IX in CMRT Module 1 Bones   
    But of course that marketing tactic works best if you then proceed to actually offer product for the client to purchase on a regular basis, rather than waiting six years between doses!
    Just sayin'...
  25. Like
    76mm got a reaction from 37mm in New terrain tile: 'Lily Pond' Deep Marsh tile   
    I have it, PM me your e-mail and I can send it over.
×
×
  • Create New...