Jump to content

scottie

Members
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by scottie

  1. Throwing in my 2 cents, been around long enough to have an opinion on this which is probably against the grain of the fan-boys, sorry lads.

    What attracted me to the original CM back in 2004 was the 3D nature of the simulation and all the benefits the gave us over the 2D top down model we call came from. It was a ground breaking experience that continued into CMx2 engine in the form of CMBN first. But since then I think there has been a lack of innovation in my opinion. There is not enough different about the other WW2 titles if you already own CMBN (plus upgrades/ all modules). 

    Now I completely understand BF are a small development team and this is a niche market, and as such users like niche features as discussed in this thread already. But these niche features take development time and come at the expense of innovation in other areas. They please the dedicated followers of course and these are the most vocal voices on this forum, but they do not attract a more general audience to purchase additional products, people like me.

    I have no need to purchase CMFI, CMFB, CMRT because the offer me the same functionality and options when managing small/medium unit tactics, they look different in terms of environment and units type for sure but its not enough of a unique selling point to make a purchase worthwhile.

    Agree that Operations mission feel a bit detached from each other,  more could be done to offer continuity support between missions and to allow the mod community to get creative with Operations (Devils Decent being the best example to date IMO).

    Completely understand why we will never see a campaign map (from the 100s of arguments about this over the last 15 years!!!). 

    The editor is an amazing feature in my opinion and keeps me playing either with community scenarios or creating my own. 

    On an ending note CMx2 does offer something pretty unique in the market, sure its not perfect but find me something better ? ... not sure there is at the moment.

    My 2p.

    Scott

  2. I agree the whole thing is very confusing :( I understand the Battlefront commercial model, I dont have an issue with it to be clear. I think the problem is making it easier for customers to engage with said commercial model. The amount of research a user must do is prohibitive to making an update or content purchase ... especially compared to steam DLC as an example.  Not suggesting Steam is an option ( I remember a post a decade ago about BF deciding it was not for them ) but maybe some form of proprietary application to help users upgrade and purchase additional content , even automate it on validated purchases. The entire thing is a mess at the moment IMO.

    Thank you.

    Scott

  3. I think the CMBO "Devil's Descent" is the perfect example of one of the strengths of this game. Small unit tactics over multiple linked scenarios. I keep a spreadsheet of squad head count when I play it for added management fun including leader changes. I want to create an affinity with the company I command within the wonderful realism environment that CMx2 creates (as opposed to COH point and click rubbish).

    I understand from previous and multiple discussions over the years a campaign map is never going to happen, that's fine if its not worth the investment BF. But more support for linked maps (in terms of persisting destruction for example) would help bridge the gap between linked scenarios (and anything more creative).

    I too struggle to play large maps in terms of "fun" levels of manageability and system performance issues. Desperately want to get into this game again but finding it hard to get the motivation. Posted about this a year ago , all the new modules are just too darn similar for me sorry (IMO) ... prefer features not 20 version of the same tank with different branding ....

  4. Just spotted this threat. Very interested. I understand the effort BF as a small developer puts into the modules but for me personally (IMO) I am finding it difficult to play these days. Additional CMx2 WW2 titles for me are all too similar (understanding many users love the addition of different vehicles and TOCs each module provides). An operational game sounds incredible if it can be made to work.

  5. You might dig playing around in the scenario editor. When I feel like I've "played out" the stock scenarios (which is actually pretty tough, the designers put in multiple ways for the scenario to play out) I make a small scenario with some units I haven't used before and fight some Little Wars.

    And... err.. 2.0 added a heaping TON of features. If you were unsatisfied with the number of features added you have perhaps not tried all of them. :)

    Yip did that lots with CMx2 vanilla. Thankful BF allows you to do that, they have definitely got that right ! fantastic feature.

    If you get bored quickly start playing PBEMs against human opponents. That changes the game more than the engine improvements you suggested.

    That is a very going point ! Playing the human element is what gives me a buzz in RO2. Will give it a go ideally against a newbie as I aint that good.

  6. Sorry forgot about this thread and thanks for the reply. I did pose my initial question honestly , was not a dig at the software offering just how I felt at the time. Check the date I joined this forum , been playing BF CM products for more that a decade , know them inside out.

    CMAK along with ETW probably represent the most time I had every spend with an application. After analysing my post I think my problem is recent exposure to R02 (no bots) logging almost 1000 hours. Completely different game but I have found my attention span for strategy less than it use to be .... not CMx2 fault obviously ! RO2 is the first FPS i have played in almost 15 years and specifically selected that product on recommendation from this forum for its realism element. Ok its a totally different concept from CM , I guess i will come back to CM at some point.

  7. Is it just me or does the addition of new equipment (TOE, nations , vehicles, etc) via the modules not add much to this game ?

    Honestly strike me down if i'm wrong , its just I have played the commonwealth module for maybe 2 hours since purchase months ago and I just keep getting bored :(

    Sure 2.0 added some features, armour cover arc is great.

    I admit I have not looked into this in too much detail but on the face of it the modules to date seem to be more about adding new equipment and formations rather than new features into the software. Maybe that's more important for most of you , just doesn't add too much to the game for me.

    I maybe alone but I am finding it hard to have sustained interest on CMx2 2.0 for any length of time these days. I need more of a link between battles in a campaign. Everything feels very detached :(

    All IMO.

    Scott

  8. I'm sure that the codes had been easily adopted to CMBN from CMFI

    So it's not very big effort, if they had demanded 65 usd for CMFI forsake of the new engine , I could understand but now I couldn't understand.

    As I said before I will wait MG module for upgrading with no price

    Regards

    LOL sorry , had to laugh at that too (no offence intended Togi) being involved in the dev world too there is no way its that simple.

    Personally I am on the fence on the $10 issue , agree BF need to be paid for their efforts but its difficult as a consumer to get use to paying for what I would class as minor features.

  9. I would also like to see a few more like Devil's Descent

    I agree, best campaign to date IMO , helped provide to a small degree some of that battle continuity i seek. The software as is obviously hits enough buttons with most of us to keep us purchasing and enough sales for BF to make it worth there time so the big leap to a campaign will never happen. All i ask is try bridging gap a little somehow.

  10. Been said a million times and turned down a million times by BF in know but personally i need more of a campaign / strategic mode or at least anything that can help improve continuity between battles in a campaign. I have struggled to get excited about playing CMBN for 6 months or so after playing it to death upon release. Completely understand games like Empire Total War are a completely different from CMBN in many ways but since ETW release in 2009 ish i have logged over 1000 hours. Different markets , different developer budgets i completely understand , just an example of software I just don't get bored of and i believe this is partly due to the size of the campaign. Just my opinion.

  11. i find CMBN takes much more skill to play it well in WEGO mode compared to REAL TIME regarding timiing and 10s of these little idiosyncrasies that it just isnt as fun .... despite the benefit of being able to replay the action in detail. What we need is a pause rewind option in REAL TIME mode IMO. (granted for AI games only)

  12. not read much of this thread admittedly really just the first post but IMO the PC gamer review is way of the mark , they have failed to understand the complexity of the software and are focusing on the elements that larger games developers spend millions on that smaller developer cant but what smaller developers do is focus on game-play and IMO BF get 10 out of 10.

  13. Ooo! [womble's greedy little eyes light up] Where were you acquiring mortar rounds from?! Us ammo-starved speculative area-firers need to know :) Oh darn. You're talking about 'zook rounds aintcha? [looks downcast]

    :) generally find them in jeeps for the US , click on a jeep, click on the ammo tab. Dont understand why the 60mm rounds are never available in trucks or why designers dont have access to amend the ammo load ether.

×
×
  • Create New...