Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    scottie reacted to Probus in Battlefront Poll Updated   
    9. One Engine - CMx3
    game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
    additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
    additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft
  2. Like
    scottie reacted to Probus in Battlefront Poll Updated   
    1. Blitzkrieg: 1939-40 
    WWII Early war
    (also Finland)
  3. Like
    scottie reacted to 76mm in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Please speak for yourself.  The fact is that there are plenty of fanbois on this forum, and they do not encourage candid discussion of the game.  If the fanbois don't like labels perhaps they should stop labeling everyone that voices the slightest criticism as a hater or troll.  I'm happy to hear a wide variety of opinions on this forum.
  4. Like
    scottie reacted to 76mm in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?
    If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.
    With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.
  5. Like
    scottie reacted to 76mm in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
    Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
    You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
    Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
  6. Like
    scottie reacted to Pelican Pal in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    You have an issue like the Engine 4 upgrade (paid) essentially breaking infantry interaction with fortifications for months on end. Not that fortifications are that fleshed out in CM, but the community response was very measured. "Haters" as a group seem largely fictitious outside of like 1-2 actual people. Especially so if you ignore the time period directly around the original CM:SF release. Which I can sympathize with to an extant because man... that release.

    What CM is, is a game system that is pretty close to being fantastic but is often just pretty good. Which is in many ways is more frustrating than if it were just crap.

    - There is a powerful scenario editor that lets you do a lot

    However, it is just weak enough to prevent designers from easily doing really interesting things.

    -  CM has pretty solid 1:1 design

    Except that commitment to 1:1 can often result in unrealistic situations. Like personnel in a half-track sitting bolt upright when hunkering down slightly would save them from being hit, or weird LOS issues.

    - CM has some fun campaigns

    Yet, with rare exceptions, they don't feel particularly connected.

    - CM has pretty good content

    If you are interested in a very specific setting/time period you are likely going to have to wait years to see it.
    CM does a lot right, which makes what it does poorly all the more annoying.
  • Create New...