Xipe66
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Xipe66
-
-
No you weren't, you were unconstrucively slagging in order to bandwagon your wishes through.Originally posted by Tinjaw:... I keep trying to have intelligent discussion on game related forums ...
-
You're pretty full of yourself and should probably shut up.
-
It has been hinted that Pausing will be available in Elite-mode aswell, when the decision is final I would expect it by the next patch.Originally posted by Bonxa:I second the veteran plus level. I like elite except for the lack of order giving while paused. It makes RT difficult with large forces.
-
I don't think so (with 99% certainty).
-
Vehicle pathfinding and TAC AI should know this by default, so the patch should be there and not in the map editor.
-
If the weapon is poorly modelled it does have scenario and PvP ramifications though - and I gather especially the latter.
Are Javelins that deadly and do they level buildings IRL seems to be the question.
Lest we forget though; http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dezg8aflMmk
-
Childish as in making demanding negative posts? You're on the floor screaming at your mom at the supermarket, dude. Spare me further rationalizations as to why I am supposed to be the childish one.
Also, you _really_ have no concept of the "RTS crowd".
-
ISTAY if YOUGO. Deal?
Also, CMx2 does not go for the RTS crowd or you haven't played any of the available RTS' available.
The interface and the information available to you have definite faults to them, but they can mostly be approached in a constructive manner.
Good riddance to you, sir.
-
In that case it's a question of effectivity, maybe RL Javelins aren't that effective against occupants in buildings (or on the buildings, for that matter).
You also raise a point I'd like to see implemented somehow - when playing a scenario with a heavy civilian population; levelling buildings like there's no tomorrow - or indiscriminate area fire from artillery or aircraft - should somehow be trackable. Because if CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera even got a whiff of 20+ civilian casualties your tactical masterpiece won't amount for **** in the big picture (Fallujah basically went that way).
Being able to zone civilian populations would be interesting, like the hotspot mosque with civilian shielding that you can't really do anything about.
(I do realize I'm playing the Iraq game, and not necessarily the initial conventional warfare at the moment of the invasion; so if this is out of scope, then I guess my points and suggestions are moot - but I do find this aspect the most compelling and interesting out of the aspects that this game can simulate)
[ July 29, 2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
-
BF just needs to take care of some of the babysitting you have to do in order to make RT truly viable (order interface, TAC AI and pathfinding, iconic info queues when certain events take place, etc).
And no, it's not going to score with the WH40k/Company of Heroes/Warcraft III crowd. CMSF in RT is not a classic RTS by any leaps or bounds (although it could learn a few things from the latest RTS installations).
It does feel unfinished though, but it will be way better than CMx1 once it gets polished.
Until bugs are fixed and reasonable requests are filled you either adapt or don't - from my standpoint the gameplay is already more fun than CMx1, eventhough I have to work around alot of clunky interfaces and bugs. But then, to some extent that was true even in the finished and patched version of CMAK.
I've been uncharacteristically fanboyish these past 48 hours, but really, I'm having a blast playing the game and making my scenarios.
-
Maybe expended ammunition should be in dollars instead of ammo load, that way scenario designers could punish you for using certain weapons in certain scenarios.
I'm not sure about the US Military's stance on this though. (On the Internet) I've seen artillery being expended on single snipers in Iraq for instance.
-
We really need a consolidated bug and request thread where known issues can be listed (both for the players' and BF's sake).
Adding to this thread though;
TAC AI
- Lacks self preservation
Not getting out of LOS, doing tactical retreats, etc. when badly outgunned.
- Doesn't adequatly use the weapons available
Esp. grenade launchers/hand thrown grenades, but also AT assets; goes both for vehicles and regular troops. Mostly it's only when issued explicit targetting orders that the heavy stuff gets used.
- Pathfinding
Atrocious - at least needs to show the player all the steps the unit plan to move through, so that you can cancel it if it puts the unit in severe danger or risque.
Command queuing
- Very fidgety. Best solution probably would be to ask for a facing direction if the player puts down the waypoint with, for instance, at Shift+Click.
- Target Arc is relative to the unit's facing direction, while the Face command is an absolute spot. They should both work the same way (preferrably the latter one).
- Target arc doesn't seem to do anything. Units do fire beyond and beside it, and hiding units do not fire at spotted enemies within it.
-
He meant hotkeys for some commonly used moves.
For the tabs there's only cycling (T/Y), and I agree that it's a bad, fidgety design that is prone to error under stress in RT (I once bailed my Stryker crew).
-
Speaking of which, is there any downside to taking all three instead of just one? (e.g. mobility or something) Or is it a feature for campaigns (if your squad with 1 javelin dies, you still have two in your surviving Stryker).
-
Ok, then I see where you're coming from, and that sounds reasonable and solvable (I'm not a modern warfare grog though). I'm sure that it will be added in if the argument can be made strong to the scope of the game.
-
Wasn't directed at you specifically, no need to get offended. But let me reiterate the question as to what it is that is lacking for you to model a war with Syria?
I do believe there's a kind of discord right now between what people expect and what BF has envisioned; and hence the strong feelings.
-
I once managed to cycle a disembarking units exit point, anyone know how I did that? It was handy, but I've forgotten how I did it.
And yeah, you can't add Face at the end of a movement que. I hope that gets added in.
-
-
This line is key. This is more about expectations (from setting to functionality) than it is about bugs that will be fixed. This is probably both due to (mis)communication and strong conservative feelings around what the CM-experience (should) entail.Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:As I remember the grogs on this forum knew what to expect because the demo was released before the game.
Maybe it would have been better to simply change the series' name with the new engine.
A Battlefront Forum closed beta would possibly also have helped (with bugs if nothing else).
I'm pretty happy about it thus far though (I'm Swedish, we don't complain - also, it's what I hoped for; bar some bugs and smallish features I'm hoping will be added in time).
-
Funny, I feel the exact opposite way. This feels much more like a sim than a game with imposing/restricting and implementing C2, unit selection, etc.Originally posted by AdamL:It really looks to me like instead of modeling the factors of war and letting the pieces fall as they may you have made a *game*, not a sim, this time around.
The actual gameplay execution feels much like earlier games, alot of simulated abstraction (esp. for infantry CMx1) but with more detail and alot more depth this time around.
I'm actually curious as to how, more specifically, you qualify CMSF more as a game - as opposed to a simulation - than CMBB/CMAK?
The game is imperfect in its current state though, I'm not denying that, and apart from bugs I hope we get some feature request implemented in the future (*hint* map generator, doing even a small map by hand is _extremely_ time consuming, and not worth it unless you're making a meticously researched real life conflict - more scenarios == game longevity).
Without psychologizing it seems to me though as alot of people are not having problems with the CMx2 engine per se as much as it, and the game's scope, somehow shattered their expectations. Someone said something to the tune of, 'Well, what good is it if it only simulates an Iraq-type conflict'. Doh.
What is missing more specifically? I see huge opportunities for scenarios and campaigns simulating anything from the initial Iraq invasion, to Operation Thunder Run, to Fallujah, to everyday skirmishes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.The engine is good, there is a huge amount of "WOW" factor there, but either way more needs to be explained or you've fallen short of modeling Syria.A war with Iran would probably play out roughly by the same timeline, and I have great expectations for campaigns modelled after military operations conducted in the past six years (or even based on the 1991 invasion) - or even conjecture. And the engine, even now (it does feel rough and somewhat unfinished), seems to be able to make an excellent job out of that.
That's my two rambling cents.
-
While it's still too early, experiencing moments like this and this in the game makes it close to 1 from the get go. That kind of simulation was what I was hoping for and expecting.
I'm pretty sure I like where it's going, and I adore the contemporary theater of war; a couple of hundred hours of gameplay and a few patches and we'll be good to go.
-
Chiming in to point out that with CM there's always more to the game than what's in the box.
The CM-series has an amazingly talented and dedicated following of modders and scenario- and campaign designers, and I am sure this will continue being true with CMSF.
I'm really looking forward to what will come out of the community once people start getting used to the game and the tools.
-
metalbrew; There's no longer a difference between pre-calculating the outcome and the realtime resolution you see in CM2 WEGO. So it's kind of a moot point.
Just skip the replay if you think you saw everything you needed to see.
I don't see that this is a problem visavi CM1 -> CM2, because the outcome is the same. Or am I misunderstanding you?
-
Randomly autogenerated maps has to come back when handcrafting scenarios, it's the life and blood for the casual CMx'er.
No opinions as of yet regarding force selection, but it has already been mentioned it's a bit to restricted and that a points system would actually help alot; more granularity wouldn't hurt.
[ July 27, 2007, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
how to chain "hide" at end of move ?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
As to 1) I don't think you can as of now, but I'm not entierly sure.
Regarding the Face command I noticed that it only becomes visible for troops a few seconds after they exit a vehicle - so in RT you can add it a few seconds after you order the disembark. But in WEGO you can't add it to disembarking troops until the next turn.
Maybe it's something similar when it comes to 2) with the Hide command.