C'Rogers

So I finally thought to myself this morning 'when is 1.08 going to come out, oh well, might as well start the campaign again tired of waiting'. Load CM:SF and realize I forgot to update it past 1.06 on my main computer (and I thought something had been weird ...). Bump onto the patch page and thought I was seeing a typo at first. Yay for 1.08.

So I finally thought to myself this morning 'when is 1.08 going to come out, oh well, might as well start the campaign again tired of waiting'. Load CM:SF and realize I forgot to update it past 1.06 on my main computer (and I thought something had been weird ...). Bump onto the patch page and thought I was seeing a typo at first. Yay for 1.08.

So I finally thought to myself this morning 'when is 1.08 going to come out, oh well, might as well start the campaign again tired of waiting'. Load CM:SF and realize I forgot to update it past 1.06 on my main computer (and I thought something had been weird ...). Bump onto the patch page and thought I was seeing a typo at first. Yay for 1.08.

Let me put it this way; I think you hang out with a much different bunch of nerds than I do. No interest in samurai? No interest in Mediveal? Those two probably share with WWII status among top five thematic settings for a game.

Going back a page on this fast moving thread. While not nearly a frequent poster I have a related but different issue. That is if you think something is worthless, or not worth much, say so. Generally the gamer attitude is 'if it can go in, why not'. Of course the why not is that for everything that goes in some other things have been left out. Recently for me this was the right-click/spacebar issue which I tried to say was unnecessary. Even now, and being it is an opinion probably always will, do not see see how this can be remotely helpful to people. But there clearly where a large number impressed by its addition.

In CMx1 (which some, maybe many, still prefer) the game was always played in one minute turns (Elmar's description above). You could then watch the one minute turn again and again. Thus it gets referred to as a movie.

Do you have the latest patch? In one of the earlier patches I think a problem was that an enemy unit selected would highlight all units that could theoretically see it. I thought that was fixed but I could be wrong. The elimination of borg spotting certainly made LOS a whole different issue. You use to never know a unit could be walking nearby one of yours if it hadn't been spotted. Now you might have an idea it is there but the men on the ground don't. It certainly seems like information passes slower through CoC than I (and many others) feel like it would. But players tend to find things going on much slower in a sim than in real life.

Hmm if you are going to do a small scenario I suppose it is remotely possible that security contractors could somehow end up on opposite sides.

I think one of the keys is how much BFC enjoyed writing a storyline for their game. If they really enjoyed the process I imagine they will do their own. Even if they didn't enjoy it they seem to enjoy their independence too much to worry about getting a license arrangement. I highly doubt that we will be seeing CM: A sci-fi title you recognize. Perhaps they would sign a writer from a recognized title to perhaps try and draw in fans and have him do an original work, but that is the only way I see. Dorosh wrote deliberate attempt to attract a broader consumer base with the admitted sacrifice of existing customers, Combat wrote I'd love to see them work on this game more - better Uncon modelling, a better AI and more terrain objects for starters. I think Dorosh is misinterpreting their argument and Combat their direction. BFC does not think their is enough money in making one game for the same genre of gamers over and over, even if they "perfect" it. As they said they did not expect modern to sell better than WWII, but that they were losing sales with each successive title of WWII and it was a deathtrap. They aren't trying to make five titles that everyone will love, but five titles that can draw in different people to keep their business alive.

There is a problem besides the weapons. You have another variable in that the terrain is a totally different model. If you wanted to run a test of soldiers being fired on from 100 yards in Tall Pines how are you going to equate that to CM:SF? You can do open field but CMx1 didn't exactly equate the open field terrain with literal emptiness. There was the assumption that things were there that the model abstracted. So you would have to find some kind of ideal mix.

John, If I had to make a guess I would say it is because the increased visibility when you are looking for a few guys is worth more than the added protection. Probably helps that once spotted the firepower of the US squad will completely suppress the superior unequal opposition. Secondary guess. Soldiers on rooftops make better pictures. Thus when someone does manage to get a picture of soldiers on rooftops that one is going to be shown.

The thing is even if they have massively shrunk the amount of developers time that is required, that still could mean months of work. It use to be years (and can be for many other games with more than one programmer). That may make it plug and play in developer terms, if not exactly ours.

I think the main issue that throws off comparisons between normal sniper reports and television programs is that we are using snipers in battle. The targets aren't just sitting around, they are expecting to get shot at. Which should mean lower hit rates and less of the frightening suppression factor (would they even know that a sniper was shooting at them and just not a normal soldier). Now this isn't to defend the current model as I haven't used snipers much, but a reminder of what the game is modeling. As Steve once said they aren't making a sniper simulator.

JasonC or anyone else on the matter. But would you say they are all, relatively, similar? Compared to say the tank difference in WWII

The reason why this is not true. The new system is, theoretically once learned, incredibly efficient and thus should be better for real time. You really don't ever have to move your hands while playing and can keep your eyes on the screen. One hand stays on mouse, the other controls the 10-12 buttons needed (the 3x3 grid and tab to switch through I guess at a minimum). Of course like everyone else I wouldn't have a problem with another system. People probably would run into the time problems mentioned with large menus. But I certainly wouldn't mind the option, but I am not the one that has to program it.

I remember when the game first came out I was explaining to a friend of mine some of the changes that had been made between the games, and what other people where complaining about. I made mention of the disappearance of the right click to bring up menu function. His response "There was a right click menu?" We managed the game with just hot keys. Once the ability to completely customize hotkeys was added we didn't have any problems. The 3x3 grid system for the hotkeys is, in my opinion, very innovative. I really wish someone had come up with something like it earlier (maybe they did, kudos to battlefront if they did). Now I say that even though I don't use it but I think I see where they are going. Hotkeys and menu have one key weakness, the more orders the more clunky it becomes. The grid menu decreases this the clunkiness factor significantly. If you were to be proficient at this method, and because it is new none of us are, it would not be difficult to have probably upwards of fifty commands easily accessible.

I have a feeling Steve's reply will start off with 'that is what I get for trying to give quick simple answers'.

I think if BFC is even slightly positive to the idea people need to start a thread on what is most important. I really doubt that it is possible to do what you are talking about (well it is possible, but I doubt it could be well implemented without taking up a lot of time). Like would we all agree a destroyed vehicle should cause a message? Half a squad getting wiped out? I think big things like that might be doable, but people should actually put what they want in order. I am rather happy with the UI. Lack of floatover tool tips are the only major complaint my friends and I have had about the game.

But I don't know if you and Steve have managed to clarify how powerful modern HE is? That is what you guys have been talking about right?

Three issues with this. One couldn't you already do this with a strict scenario design? Just create a scenario where the US player starts with burning vehicles surrounded by buildings (or whatever) and most fall back to preserve forces. Secondly, would it be any fun? Finally ambush scenarios can not really escape the fact that you as a player can not be completely ambushed. By virtue of playing the game you know that your moving troops are going to be heading into battle. You will not accidentally crest a hill and wander into those sited ATGMs (you may do so for other reason, but not because you are unaware of an enemy).

Steve, Here is a simple question that may clarify matters. In CMx1 I remember roughly a section of the manual that talked about the use of large artillery guns. I believe it said that they were included so that rare situations (assaulting a coastal battery I believe was the example) could be recreated. Of course I remember using such weapons probably much more than ever actually ever happened. I take it that the ability to create rare scenarios is no longer a top priority (trenches with overhead cover for example, Syrian militia acting in a tactically sound but unrealistic way). That things that would be possible, but not likely, have been put very, very far down the list if not written off all together?

Not to mention a pretty drastic difference in military structures between Syria and Imperial Japan. I believe the answer to this has been "use craters". Not perfect, but close. He did talk about this guys. Second page of this thread. I am pretty sure that is what he is saying. "Worse, repressive regimes tend to undermine their own lifespan when they arm and train their citizens to fight against authority because the reality of the Syrian regime is there every day without any notion that it will go away, while the threat of an occupation by the US is not even in the same ballpark."

I don't know the answer to your question but before it gets into technicals I think there might be a more key issue you are overlooking, accuracy. Even if the shells are not drastically more powerful (they may or may not) if they can reliably hit a difficult target like a trench that would make a much greater difference.

I think you may potentially get your wish with the modules, though I don't know there thoughts on them. Back when the game was in development and modules hadn't been solidified as to what they would be, price was up in the air as in regards to content. Judging by how they have talked though I think the idea is that there is to much work involved without enough reward for minor modules. Just a guess though.

If Chops can't get it to open I volunteer to take his place. Not that I want to cut off someone from an opportunity but will claim first alternate if I can .