RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
Dudes, it's a friggin brain in a jar. It doesn't need to sleep, eat, or take time off (what does a brain do with spare time anyway, unlikley to have any hobbies...)
He can do that just fine.
-
One has to wonder why that idiot above Taki wasn't yet shown the door? Or do you keep him for entertainment and poke him with a stick so he growls and shows his teeth?
-
I suppose in modern days, where your tank gets killed from 3km away before you see anything, sitting on it became out of fashion.
-
My point about "weird" is that simHQ has not allowed the people you know from here, to continue their personal stuff over there.
On the other hand, you guys here can't lay it off and keep going on about them.
As for forum subject lines, "utter dreck of a game" - right or wrong - seems to be what many guys over there feel. It's not less an exageration than saying "game is fantastic" like you do.
As for the rest...well, if a model costs 5000$, then they are having an incorrect business plan or idea. But I don't belive that number.
-
add-on as in "downloadable patch" or add-on as in "pay for content"?
-
You guys are weird. SimHQ enforces it's policy that personal issues from other message boards should not be brought to SimHQ.
Battlefront has a similar policy, but you guys are currently ignoring that, in effect being less civilized than the dudes at SimHQ you're mouthing off about.
Bloodstar, I know many of those people voting "no" in the polls, and you are dead wrong if you think it's as simple as all joining togehter to conspire against BFC. And the fact that the Ground War Guy - Magnum - doesn't like ToW is not "too much negativity", it's his opinion and he's certainly qualified and able to review a game as good or bad.
-
This sounds like a very good idea with multiple uses.Originally posted by Drusus:Would it be possible to add to the scenarios areas where units aren't allowed to go? This could be used for the map edge problem if the scenario designer so chooses, or it could be used for other stuff. Like there is a hospital somewhere on the map or just orders from higher levels of command.
-
What funky movie was that from?Originally posted by Sergei:A bit of entertainment:
-
I don't think a brain in a jar of nutritious fluid celebrates holidays.
-
You guys have been bombing arabian speaking countrys for 5 years now. It's kinda hard to fathom that no one managed to recruit or train more people fluent in arabic during that timespan...
-
Steve, I feel abandoned...forgotten...hopeless...
An answer would save me from certain suicide, ya know.Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:Question about the tank screenshots (yes, I'm being late here):
Do you guys plan to randomize skins or decals as well? Randomizing model details is a great idea that adds to belivable visuals - random vehicle numbers and tactical markings would also go a long way towards that.
-
Question about the tank screenshots (yes, I'm being late here):
Do you guys plan to randomize skins or decals as well? Randomizing model details is a great idea that adds to belivable visuals - random vehicle numbers and tactical markings would also go a long way towards that.
-
Is there actually any 3d views in this, or all just map-down icons?
-
We had a recent discussion on this in Austria because of weird claims about the Eurofighter Typhoon costs.Originally posted by MikeyD:How much does it cost for fuel to have a nearby F16 loitering at 25,000 feet?
I would say for modern jets (Typhoon, Gripen) the figure is somewhere in the Ballpark between 20.000 and 30.000 EUR max. for a flight hour. That includes not just the fuel, but also add-on costs like maintainance, airbase etc.
What does an LGB cost, 100.000 bucks tops? Likely even less. Sounds a helluva lot cheaper to me.
-
How accurate can you fire an unguided 155mm?
5 meter CEP is great, but are normal shells that much more inacurate?
-
I'll run this by a friend who's working for the army image analysis "department" - he should be able to make more of this. Gonna take two weeks, though.
There sure are an awfull lot of these earth works to be seen, but their random nature makes really zero sense.
One thing for sure, the airport is dual use military/civilian - but you guys knew that I guess.
-
That airport looks very...interesting.
If these are trenches and foxholes, they are all over the place and don't seem to make a lot of tactical sense.
-
You have a strange preferance for a "date movie", dear Para.
-
I'm not talking about TOW anymore, Melibone. I'm talking with a guy I haven't seen for three years and known for six. You'll have to excuse my presence.
-
Oh man. Memorys of a looooong gone past. Where the hell did your bloody website go, btw? Now that was a cornerstone of flightsim culture in it's days.Originally posted by Sigrun:Siggi. XXX
-
I'll be giving it a rest after this post, but this is clearly where the contradiction lies.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:ToW is a fantastic game, it is probably the 2nd most realistic 3D tactical game out there,...
On one hand you are not modelling features that are crucial to realistic tactics of the period (smoke, tank-riding, houses, long range armor duels), or part of the period equipment every unit had (mortars), on the other hand you're claiming you are making the "second most realistic 3d tactical game out there".
So which one is it then? You can't claim you're making a very realistic 3d tactical wargame but make key omissions and allow unrealistic stuff (infantry crews tanks) to happen.
It may be realistic compared to other RTS, but compared to other 3d wargames like Full Spectrum Warrior for example? They at least have the proper equipment and tactics included.
It may be a fun game, it may be an immersive game, but it has true gaps in it's "realism" so selling it as the next best thing to CM in realism is just incredible.
I'm outta here, don't bother replying. But you guys would do well to take my sentiments serious because I've heard a lot of other internet discussion about this game and the very same points I'm making here (complete with the loss of belief in what Battlefront stands for, which was "gameplay over graphics").
-
These three are big ones for me. One concerns infantry and their usage, one concerns tanks and their usage, and one concerns the "scissoirs paper rock" system of combined arms. So basically every element of the game that is important for me has one major realism omission.Originally posted by Moon:RS_Colonel, the list you have made of omissions is pretty much complete (and the jury is in fact still out on the engagement ranges at least). You make it sound like dozens and dozens of must-have features have been removed from the game, but we're talking about those 3 really and nothing else.
There are more, like infantry not riding on tanks or no smoke grenade cover (last I heard) - which are minor complaints but still reduce the amount of realistic tactics possible.
Sorry Moon, but more and more I must question if you're still interested in "graphics over realism" or now the other way round.And then look what we have at the other side of the equation - individual soldiers, recrewable equipment, realistic damage models, individual penetration holes, animated air power, a campaign system with a full RPG element and and and... in summing up: a WW2 real-time game much more realistic than anything else comparable out there. I think that warrants the "freaking big news" indeed.
Individual soldiers is a realism bonus, I give you that. Recrewable equipment may or may not be...if untrained soldiers can crew tanks that's less realism, not more. Realistic damage models are important but CM Players expect that as a given.
Individual penetration holes, animated air power is VISUAL stuff...how you count that as a plus for realism I don't understand. It may be a plus for immersion, but not for realism.
Campaign System with RPG Elements isn't necessarily a realism feature either.
So out of your list, "much more realistic than anything else comparable out there" are only two things - detailed damage model and individual soldiers. But that depends with what you compare...Sudden Strike RTS or Combat Mission.
Sorry, but no. You can't sell me that. The game is certain not "limited in scope" as far as campaigns are concerned. If you mean "limited in scope" by focusing in platoon-sized engagements, then you are correct - but doing them "extremely well", for me, would mean giving the infantry and tanks their historical tactics, advantages and disadvantages. Doing stuff well, for me, doesn't mean doing it with pretty animation but omitting major parts, like standard german infantry equipment from the list (50mm Mortar integral to every platoon etc.).Disappointement: One of the mistakes you make IMO is that you focus on individual features missing but lose the big picture out of sight. TOW is not the kind of sandbox game like CM was (I am borrowing this phrase from Matt who used it recently in an internal discussion, similar to what is going on here actually). It focuses on a limited scope of things and does what it provides extremely well.
If the given mission is to attack a village, as per your AAR, then historically the germans would have brought mortars, and the russians would have fortified a few houses to defend from. This is what happens in CMBB, and I expect that to be realistic. Otherwise why did you code your TacAI to behave like that?You're actually misquoting us if you say that we try to rationalize why something isn't important and that makes it sound ridiculous. Nobody is saying that mortars aren't important. Or that entering buildings wasn't a part of WW2 tactics.
I said the exact opposite several times now, and I will keep repeating it as long as people will keep misquoting us. But their omission doesn't make the missions that the game provides any less enjoyable, nor, inherently, any less realistic *for that given mission*.
Of course, you can also construct tank missions that do not go much beyond 500 meters - that happened in some circumstances. But that wasn't the norm. So you're saying your game is realistic, as long as it only portrays some very weird unusual engagements.
Again, this is a question vs Majority vs. Minority "situations".Or did *every single battle* feature mortars? Or people fighting from buildings?
No, not every single battle featured mortars. Not every battle had people fight from buildings. Not every battle had more than 500m engagement ranges for the tank guns, or used a smoke screen to cover advances.
But since the 50mm mortar and similar sized units were integral parts of infantry platoons, since many battles evolved around attack and defense of villages, and since the russian steppes are ideal tank terrain for long range shots, your game doesn't portray well what really happened in a realistic way. The only way you can claim "realism" is if you reduce the avalable missions to all be some kind of "goofy, unusual" engagements where the germans forgot their mortars in the base.
No, I'm expecting TOW to deliver a 80% realistic tank/infantry tactics game out of the box, but currently it seems to be at 60% realism and 110% graphics.As for those people that want a game realistic "down to every detail" - that's ok, I want that, too, but don't forget in the meantime to be happy about the 90% of things that you get while you whine about the 10% that you don't. It took us three games to refine the CM engine and move from, say, 80% to 90%. It now takes us several more years to make a new engine which will allow us to add a few more %. You're expecting TOW to deliver 110% right out of the box.
Well, that's not at all encouraging. If you push major improvements ("realism fixes") back for a possible addon, don't expect people to buy the game beforehand without even knowing if it will ever reach a similar level of realism as CC or CM. Of course that's a catch22 because if people don't buy the game there won't be an addon.As for the add-on, nobody has answered because nobody knows at this point. There will be free patches for the game without a doubt, and I bet some of those will be adding free content. But there will also be paid add-ons and expansions, and don't be surprised if we're going to stick the bigger improvements in there. At the same time, you should also not be surprised if there won't be any add-ons and improvements at all when TOW doesn't sell well because people complain that you cannot hide behind some interior furniture in the game...
Again, look, I can't blame you for going where the money is - but stop selling the CM crowd this game as the next coming. For a CM Wargamer, it isn't, and the continous "really, it doesn't matter what we had to leave out because the game plays well without" makes you guys sound uncredible.
I guess I'll remove myself from this particular board. Wake me when CMx2 WW2 is around the door. And next time, do me a favor and spare us the hype.
-
What hurts me a bit, Moon, is that you guys created a large hype (Puzzle Pieces anyone?) around this one and made it "unbelivable freaking huge news".Originally posted by Moon:RSColonel, that may well be. Creating a game is always a balance between realism and details and playability and, let's be honest, real-world considerations (like money for example), and until the game is released it is often hard to predict how it will all come together.
Keep in mind you created this hype on a website that caters to wargamers first and foremost, who want realistic WW2 tactics down to every detail.
And now, bit by bit, disapointment sets in as more and of the pieces that make a game "realistic" are removed (at least in my opinion, and I know others think similar).
If you guys were just a generic software company this would not be any kind of surprise, but to see Battlefront try and "rationalize" why all this stuff (no enterable buildings, no mortars, 500m engagement ranges for tanks) isn't actually important...makes me wonder, can't help it.
Also, I might repeat my question: Will this "addon" be free or payware? People keep promising stuff that "might be in the addon" but as of yet we don't even know if one will happen at all.
-
I can't help but wonder how many more realism compromises we have to accept for this game.
Yeah, I know, I'm a whiner. So what.
Will this "addon" be released as a patch, or as a payware deal? Because I can't see myself paying extra for content that is IMHO crucial to a tactical WW2 game.
Sorry for the negativity, but it seems evertime I come here with high hopes for the game, another piece is taken away (and pieces added that do not fit, like the "recrewing of AT Guns"). This will certainly not be a clickfest-RTS, but with a few more pieces taken away, it will not remain a realistic WW2 either.
Has anyone else every seen a Javelin friendly fire accident?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I'm not 100% certain, but shouldn't the Jav IR seeker be imaging, and allow for lock onto specific target shapes?
Dark night should have nothing to do with it, possibly it would even improve signature resolution.