Sanok
-
Posts
319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sanok
-
-
I'm suprised you're suprised, Sanok. You've been around since 2003, FCOL. I would have thought that anyone who had been around that long would have learned that BFC is great at making combat strategy games and not so great at customer relations. So what? They don't have the budget for slick tongued people. Maybe people who are passionate about their games aren't even fussed about relations.Originally posted by GreenAsJade:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sanok:
I just did some reading in that thread, too, and was very surprised by several things. Firstly, it was amazing how rude Steve was. It's pretty sad a company representative would tell paying customers they're insane and pathetic, and that they're a bunch of whiners.
Steve does take time to talk to us about what he thinks. That's good. He talks straight about what he thinks, and isn't too fussed about offending some folk. There are people out in there in the big world like that.
It's just how it is. Work with what you've got.
Standing on someone's porch and yelling out to the world how rude you think the people in the house are is not the most polite thing in itself, is it?
GaJ. </font>
-
I completely agree with you. That's why Steve's rude and insulting posts were so shocking.Originally posted by Wartgamer:I would think any company would want to keep the existing customer base as much as possible. I doubt the market for any real wargame exceeds 100K copies. Losing the existing customer base (probably 25-50K copies) would not make sense.
The game would have to provide a challenging, varied computer AI before I would buy it (given no PBEM).
I'd also not bother with the game without pbem, unless the AI was top-notch. Even so, playing a live person, plus meeting new people, is the best part of playing CM.
-
The harsh reality is, that BFC is a company out to make as much money as it can. If that means designing a new game that caters to an entirely new group of computer wargamers and leaving every one of us behind, they'll do it and not bat an eye.
-
I just did some reading in that thread, too, and was very surprised by several things. Firstly, it was amazing how rude Steve was. It's pretty sad a company representative would tell paying customers they're insane and pathetic, and that they're a bunch of whiners.
It's also surprising that BFC somehow knows solo play is much more important to customers, especially when he discounted forum opinions and magazine surveys. He must have a magic eight ball that gives him his information.
All-in-all, a very disappointing and poor example of customer relations.
-
Matt, I need for you to contact me. Yahoo email shut down my account after I got spam zombied. I can't find your email address anywhere. I want to continue our pbems.
-
Matt, I need for you to contact me. Yahoo email shut down my account after I got spam zombied. I can't find your email address anywhere. I want to continue our pbems.
-
Matt, I need for you to contact me. Yahoo email shut down my account after I got spam zombied. I can't find your email address anywhere. I want to continue our pbems.
-
Slysniper, if you want a game of CMBO, I'm available.
sanok 29 at yahoo dot com
-
Using safe mode, I was able to install CMBO. I appreciate the help. Thank you very much.
-
My CMBB is also the CDV special edition. CMAK is the Battlefront/internet version.Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:Are your CMBB & CMAK discs the BFC/Internet versions ? The CMBO Special Edition disc is a CDV release and it uses a different form of copy protection. It's mildly possible that this copy protection is making it hard for your CD/DVD drive to read it properly (thus more spinning or frequent spinning up and down, etc.).
To boot into Safe Mode, restart your computer and before it shows the Windows splash screen press the F8 key. This should bring up a text-based menu where you can select Safe Mode or Safe Mode with Networking by highlighting the selection with the arrow keys. This mode should allow you to see the CDROM and install from it, but it won't load up all of the software that normally loads up.
-
If I'm playing versus the AI, I prefer a scenario specifically designed for play against the AI. When playing a pbem, I prefer a QB.
I've found scenarios to be very disappointing. I've found two kinds.
1. An overwhelming attacker that plows through the defender, while facing a small number of turns to accomplish this.
2. An overwhelming attacker that plows through the defender, but the defender gets reinforcements to launch a counterattack.
Yawn.
I know this is historically accurate, but it's just not as fun for me to play in a game.
I generally prefer to defend. With most scenarios, the defender does little more than click Go. In QBs, if I'm defending, I must take the time to study the map to determine where I think the attack is coming from. Once the battle is going, I have more things I can do. Do I move certain units? Where do I send my reserves? When do I use my off-map arty? Where should I commit my armor?
For me, QBs are far more fun.
-
I deactivated the anti-virus, but the game still did not install. I have the special edition version that I bought at the local mall here in the US.Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:If you have anti-virus software running, you'll need to disable it temporarily. If that doesn't work, then you may need to boot into Safe Mode and attempt the installation there.
There's a slight possibility that the CD/DVD drive may have problems reading the disc, but that is rare. Is this the Battlefront/Internet version of CMBO or is it a Retail/CDV version ?
If I need to boot into safe mode, I don't know how to do that.
I noticed something else. When BB or AK is in the CD tray, the D drive icon changes to the appropriate CM game icon. With BO, it doesn't change. The words below it change to Combat Msn. Also, with BB and AK, the computer makes a quiet hum when the disks are spinning. With BO, it sounds *much* louder.
-
I try to install CMBO, but nothing happens. I insert the disk, click the D drive icon, and the screen changes to the install page. I click the install icon, but nothing happens. The disk spins in the tray, but the install won't begin. CMBB and CMAK installed without problems. I cleaned the CMBO disk, it isn't warped, and I can't see any scratches or damage on it.
Here are the specs of my conputer:
[ February 16, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Sanok ]
-
For BFC to have made more money in sales, and for more people to better enjoy the game, I'd have preferred to have the "missing" units included and put up with a few whining self-proclaimed grogs.Originally posted by Treeburst155:....and as a North Africa/Italy game, the grogs would blast the game as unrealistic if those late war NWE units were in it.
Treeburst155 out.
-
I still say, that off-map arty in BB and AK is almost useless. The shells fall so spread out, hardly any of them actually do any damage.
-
-
Even though Steve from BFC said it is gamey to split squads, it is really gamey the way CM is set up. Of course, CM is a game, but look at how squads are modeled. Every man in a squad suffers the same morale affect. Every man panics, or routs, or stays and fights. This is not realistic at all, but gamey. Why? Because CM is a game and things need to be modeled a certain way to play the *game.* Ultimately, this gameyness causes people to complain when real tactics are used. Using real tactics takes advantage of an engine limitation, so it's called gamey, but the "proper" way to play is the way that's actually gamey!
-
Treeburst said, "HMGs and mortars are of limited use in forest fights. There is also the question of HMG effectiveness when presented with a platoon consisting of 6 units, as opposed to just 3. I have not tested this, so I'm just throwing out the question. It would seem to me too many targets to deal with could be a problem for the HMG."
Treeburst, this is realistic tactics against an HMG! If an MG is encountered, the infantry tries to flank it to knock it out. It's gamey *not* to split the squads in this example.
-
I was wondering if I was just cursed with bad luck in that game. Turn after turn, my tanks are hitting the enemy tanks, but I'm getting ricochets by the cart load. A lot of the fighting is at longer ranges, but the 160 and the 46 meters ricochets were unbelieveable.
-
I'm playing the Russians in a pbem that takes place in July 1943. Early in the game, I had a KV-1 battle with a Pz IIIM. Both were stationary and were 160 meters apart. My KV scored six hits, all on the front armor. Five were penetrations and one was a ricochet. The Pz IIIM was still firing until after the fifth hit.
Later in the game, I had a T-34 fighting a Pz IIIM in scattered trees. Both were stationary. My T-34 fired a shot from 46 meters and got a ricochet off the front armor. The Pz IIIM backed away, but was killed by the next shot.
Did Russian AP suck that badly or did BFC drop the ball on Russian 76.2mm guns?
-
I've seen things like this and they're very irritating. I once clicked on the unit taking fire and went to view one of the firing unit, which was was downhill. The highlight box around the unit taking fire was actually on the side of the hill, which meant the hill should have totally blocked LOS, which it didn't.Originally posted by junk2drive:My troops were sneaking down a slope and well below was a mg bunker that started firing on them.
The LOF from the bunker bent up, over the rise, and down to my troops, who were hugging the ground. From level one I could not see the bunker.
So it works both ways.
It's also puzzling to me why a pillbox or bunker can fire, then disappear from LOS, leaving the 'lost sight' marker behind, yet units can still trace LOS to the bunker or pillbox location.
-
So, what Philippe said was true. It's gamey only because you don't like to do it, and don't want to take the time to manage split squads. There's still that old engine limitation, regardless.Originally posted by Treeburst155:The thing about Halfsquad Hordes is that the tactic is easily defeated by splitting your own squads. It's not a brilliant tactical idea. Using the tactic just forces the game into a halfsquad fight. Anyone who doesn't do it will likely lose. Why don't we just not do it, and make the orders phases much more pleasant?
Treeburst155 out.
-
I hardly think your five tests are worthy of concluding 'every time.'Originally posted by Treeburst155:Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes, one defending squad cannot reasonably be expected to suppress the fire of two full attacking squads. Therefore, the game limitation of a single target doesn't really matter because the defenders wouldn't have the weapons to suppress all the attackers anyway. The defender correctly gets overwhelmed. Your puny halfsquads, on the other hand, should not be able to overwhelm an equal defending force so consistently and as easily as they do.
Attackers do not generally get overwhelming victories when they attack at 1:1 or worse. I'd bet the attacker usually gets his butt kicked at those odds. Your two halfsquads against one whole defending squad will get that victory EVERY time. Unrealistic and gamey.
Treeburst155 out.
It's still the same principle, no matter how you try to explain it. Flanking takes advantage of an engine limitation, whether its full squads or half.
-
It's no different. A defending squad can fire at only one target. Two full squads attacking, using flanking maneuvers, is still gamey, because it takes advantage of that engine limitation.Originally posted by stikkypixie:Why? Because CM only let's one squad target one other squad at the same time. In reality the two german half-squads should have lost, because the soviet squad should have targeted both of them (which is well in their means since they have an equal number of men).
Note that this is completely different from being flanked by two full squads unlike some have said. Because the defender wouldn't have the firepower to pin both full squads at the same time.
It sounds like the anti-split squad group wants it both way.
PBEM in CMx2
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
**It's one thing to say "I find this rude, and it suprises me". It's not rude to expect whatever you like.**
I'm not expecting whatever I like. I'm simply expressing my surprise that a representative of BFC was rude and insulting to some of their paying customers. It's simply a poor business practice.
**It's another to say "It's a pretty sad company that...".**
I didn't say that. I said it was sad that a representative of the company was rude and insulting.
**This is making a negative judgement about a whole company.**
Perhaps, but you also admitted that BFC is poor at customer relations.
**That, IMHO, is rude.**
Okay. I don't think it is.
**If I were any BFC person reading that the first part of your message, I might have been given cause for thought. By the time I'd finished reading the second bit, I'd probably have been thinking "stuff him, rude bastard"
**
If BFC feels that way about a paying customer, and I'm in no way saying they do, I find that disappointing and poor business.
Is it possible the humble, little company on the cutting edge of the genre, is beginning to think they're too big for their britches, now that they've tasted success and are growing? Again, I'm in no way saying this is their attitude. I'm merely speculating.