C'Rogers
-
Posts
462 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by C'Rogers
-
-
Well this is really the center of all the "Can we play such and such battles with CM:SF ...". The more you are willing to pretend, the easier it will be. If you are willing to pretend enough we could probably mod the names enough to make a Civil War infantry game.If it turns out that the units are not very realistic, I will still play pretend... -
Yeah I thought the same when I saw that idea posted. The idea of hiding objectives from one side is incredibly useful (for example the US may have to protect a building being used as a temporary field hospital but the Syrians don't need to know this) but the double hidden objective, at first, struck me as a tad useless.Gaining points for occupying hidden objectives, to reward good tactics, will have to be used sparingly though.However I think there is possibilities for use of double hidden objectives outside just sound tactics. Here is an example that may illustrate its potential useful in a different way.
"Syrian General BFC is trying to defect. He was trying to flee to a Mosque on the west side of town for safety however he has run into some difficulties and Syrian forces are also out looking for him. If he hasn't made it to any of the Mosques yet he probably hiding in a nearby building. We need to go in and secure as much of the area as possible so we can safely extract him."
The mission briefing gives an idea of where he should be located (west side of town around a Mosque of which there may be multiple) and the scenario designer would designate the building where he was in fact located. Neither side has any more information on where exactly he may be, so it is somewhat of a crap shoot on who will turn out to be right. But it does make the overall strategy the player would take interesting.
Overall I probably would not want to use this option that much but it does offer some intriguing possibilities. I highly doubt it would be used in any kind of tournament like serious players but for a friendly game it could be enjoyable.
[ March 21, 2007, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ]
-
Yeah I am pretty much positive quick battles are in, just as Cameroon says no more random maps. So I am wondering if each quick battle map can have the same set variable objectives that scenarios can.
-
All very exciting. Is there any difference with how objectives will work in quick battles? As a second question can there be multiple settings for the force objective? For example if the US loses 5% of their forces Syria gets 50 points, 15% 200, 30% 500.
-
While victory conditions have been mentioned a lot, one thing I don't think I have heard is how will these many different types of victory conditions work in quick battles. Will each map have set conditions or will they be alterable before the map?In CMSF, the victory conditions for each side can be totally unique... and totally asymmetrical. -
John,
I would suggest you rewatch that episode. In the first 30 seconds of the segment the beret wearing guy says "the myth isn't whether quicksand exists, it is whether killer quicksand exists." Whether "Hollywood" quicksand existed that a person could be completely sucked down by. They even say at the end of the segment that people have died in quicksand but that it is not due to drowning, as people are too buoyant, but because of getting stuck (then dying by dehydration or something).
-
Well I am sure at some point there was at least some thought given to the idea. I am sure at some point there was probably a tiny bit of thought given to the idea of starting off CMx2 as a Civil War game. The question is how much.but has any thought been given to doing an early war module? -
I am confused here. If CoPlay will not be in modules, how will it even get into the WWII release then? Or does the statement just apply to CM:SF modules.I certainly won't be released into a Module. It's going to take us a huge chunk of dedicated time to make it, so it probably won't even make the intial WWII release. -
BFC,
On the issue of CoPlay that is far away three questions.
1) Will players have roles that make them higher and lower on the chain (4 players command their own section of troops, a fifth just relays orders and communications) or will it just be like it is now with multiple people (five people each controlling their own company size elements).
2) Will off map assets be available to all players, have a priority chain, or be restricted by the "purchasing" player.
3) Will CoPlay potentially make it into a CM:SF module or is it totally out for this title.
-
It is also an issue of size of battle that some of us forum members are used to. When there was the announcement of real time I thought 'well I can't sit around making sure I check everything twice, but perfectly doable'. But then I still generally play company size engagements, not some of the monstrous engagements some people seem to favor. Now those will be likely near impossible in real time. But Company level or smaller (with probably like 15 different total "units") should not be that hectic.
-
This is something that it seems is just going to have to be repeated over and over again until the game is out. I think there are a number of people who just won't buy that variable victory conditions will work until they actually play it.Also remember folks, with different victory conditions, a fair fight has different meaning. Maybe as the Americans, I have to take and hold a building while as the Syrians, I have to destroy the American battalion HQ.
Or much like the original version of Axis and Allies if I remember correctly. It is an interesting idea though as something to be done by people. How many points as the Syrians (or how few as the Americans) do you need to accomplish a scenario. Interesting way to set up battles potentially.Sort of like a game show where one player says "I can name that tune in 5 notes", the other player says I can name that tune in 3 notes (note, he one upped the bid so as not to get stuck with a counter offer of only 2 notes [big Grin] )..... -
To my limited understanding.So, Starforce is a pirate software? Again I'm sorry I just have no understanding what-so-ever of it and don't understand how it ruins DVD drives. Again, not saying it does or doesn't.Starforce is a protection software that companies put on CDs/DVDs to try and make it more difficult to just download and play the game without purchasing. However Starforce is often accused of its protections going overboard and damaging people's computers. It can potentially ruin a DVD driver by installing its own software which purpose is to ensure that a game can only be played when a the correct CD/DVD is in the drive, but to some people has resulted in outside problems with their drive.
Of course if you want more you can always consult wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starforce.
-
Thanks for finding the interview.
BFC, is the use of difficulty levels here really the right phrase? When I think difficulty levels I am thinking of more difficult playing experiences against an AI. You seem to be describing somewhat different modes of play though, kind of like an expanded version of how fog of war can be chosen at the moment.That is a choice of 3 difficulty levels to play at which include: basic, veteran, and eliteI may just be over analyzing though.
-
Though after some market research and people telling us that the game will be garbage without PBEM but better than the Holy Grail with PBEM we will be offering two versions, one with and one without. The PBEM version will cost $300 because you guys said it was really worth that much.Yes, there is news. Yes, there is PBEM.
well that is what I would be tempted to do at least after all the posts on the issue . -
Considering your idea that the CMx1 engine was more versatile in your 'what if' I can't think of a reason that BFC would choose to do CM:SF with a versatile engine with excellent graphics but not with a versatile engine with okay graphics.Say the CMX1 engine was more versatile and you got CMBO and CMAK done by Spring 2003 and were going to do at least one more game on it. -
In my mind at least I see a fairly huge difference between Kamikaze, Martyrs, and what are generally referred to as Suicide Bombers. While what they may all be doing might seem fairly stupid and atrocious to 'civilized' people there are some differences. What makes suicide bombers so atrocious is that generally when I think of that term I think of a suicide bombing it is a person going into an area crowded with civilians and setting off his explosives. A martyr may disguise himself as a civilian and endanger civilians without care but is looking to target a military operation. A kamikaze is in military uniform and generally not hiding among civilians and solely targeting military units.
The foremost example to me is the most despicable on top of being stupid while the last doesn't seem nearly as monstrous in comparison, though still seeming fairly dumb.
-
-
We would never notice naked girls on the tanks? I beg to differSeriously guys this is something youll likely never notice in game as you have to be very close to see this. .
-
The only problem with this is that it assumes they know where they are.I think they should talk about where they are even if they have abandoned the project.It seems they are in the state of the game is suppose to be done, is running, but not working right. We should figure it out soon ... but maybe not.
-
This seems more like a good reason not to have numbers though. Tournament players would also break down and calculate exact differences of speed between units if listed when having access to this information is unneccesary and probably makes the game less enjoyable (also making the game more unrealistic depnding on how you view your role).However, if you're a tournament type player the answer is yes you do examine the numbers. The game engine is broken down and studied to the point of insanity.I can understand that some peple enjoy lusing the game as a learning tool but as BFC pointed out that infotmation can be found on the internet (and probably with more detail to).
-
Do people really even look at the numbers that closely in CMx1 now? I know when a map starts I will look through my weapons and get a sense of what has high penetration, low penetration, and those inbetween (and if some guns are better at long range or if I have a limited number of rounds). But that is pretty much it.
-
I am more interested in were you saw mention that such units weren't neing included as I don't remember anything like that and know that there has been talk of special forces and how irregular forces will function.If necessary I can dig up some references. But as I stated, the game design has probably passed the point that this can be reflected, assuming I can prove it. -
I think the argument sums up like this (this being one of those fairly frequent topic).Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic aboutBFC wants to do modern. It is interesting to them and creates the best enviroment for developing the new engine for future games.
BFC doesn't like doing past hypothetical scearios, unlikely future scenarios, or modeling ungoing conflicts.
Syria fits the bill as the most likely realistic scenario that fits the game model (including the addition of campaign mode I think).
BFC thinks in a company level game Syria will more than provide an adequate challenge to US players who will not just steamroll the Syrian.
BFC thinks that the market for such a game is significant enough to make the game commercially succesful.
Wargamers also used to think a good tactical game required tiles as BFC mentions from time to time about their early develpment of CM:BO.I'll also state that even mainstream gamers like sides with similar capabilitiesHope I am not wrong but that is what I remember from BFC arguments in the past. The main answer being, it is what they find interesting and disagree with the assertion that the audience is oppossed to the game.
-
With the frequency that threads like this pop up this comment should just be turned into an image (like the frequently seen "Search") to be posted when it comes up.The other reason is that Charles and I don't have much interest in alternate history.
I imagine if that was going to be done (which I imagine is highly unlikely) it would fall under title status (making it even more unlikely).'Course, I guess we can have hypothetical China-America stuff for that, now. Now that might be an interesting module (though I don't expect it to happen).
Animations and gameplay
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
To my understanding (hoping my memory isn't wrong) the game tracks each fired round. However I you are only being provided rough numbers on things like ammo (instead of 250 bullets it might say around 250)