Zalgiris 1410
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Zalgiris 1410
-
-
OK I think that I got confused by Steve's first statement that it will be H-H only and I took that as exclusionary of the third sentence reference to there being Solo play. Sorry but I remember the BFC asking or polling in the forum a little while back about how many CMers played solo and would we would mind if there isn't the capacity for hosting it in CMx2 or somefink!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:CM:SF will be head to head only.
The CMx2 engine, however, is coded and designed to accept CoPlay (what we call multi-multi-player).
Solo and H-H will always be in the CMx2 future since the code is already there.
No reason to yank out something that works.
I'm still a little jumpy purhaps about what's being changed for CMx2, can you blame me?
-
Yeah, sorry MD I'm tired and I got a bit reductive to ensure that I made my point clearly enough, I hope! BTW I didn't study 'English' History as part of my BA, 'English' Literature OTOH...
You'll really have to excuse my French Steve, but WTF no solo play in CM:SF, I'm out for the count. I've never played anything Multi-CoPlay whatever ya call it, I can't even manage to play CMx1 via PBEM! How is someone like me expected to cope without solo play and I'm only 31, I don't know?
-
I was wondering if CM:SF's main focus will be more oriented towards facilitating multi-player team play as aposed to allowing more solo and Head to Head wargaming along the lines of CMx1?
I gather from what BFI has been bonily posting that there will be at least solo playing options, at least I think so. However, the inability to go the Syrians in a Campaige mode is making me wonder to what extent the CMx2 engine will be carrying over the capacity for such solo and H-H wargaming that could be similar to how CMx1 was!
-
I was wondering about the effects if any that Infantry squads, HQs and HMGs gain when positioned on the second story of buildings when engaged in firing against enemy units in covered and concealed positions from between 50 to 200 metres. That is to say outside of hand grenade range but within effective small arms fire range.
So my question is regarding as to wheither 2nd story placed troops and HMGs gain any height advantaged derived fire effects against enemy troops in protection such as foxholes, trenches and rubble in particular?
To be clear I'm not asking about any protection that the units in the building get vis a vis those enemy troops who might be firing back at them. Also for the sake of arguement the terrain is flat and excuse all other veriables as well.
So basically is it easier in the game for those 2nd story units to hit the enemy in near by foxhole, trenches and rubble as aposed to units on the ground floor or in other ground level positions with either targeted or area fired small arms fire?
IME I think this is so but I'm not entirely sure because the times when I've been firing at enemy troops from the 2nd story of buildings I have probably had close assaulting ground troops attacking the targets soon enough as well for me notice otherwise. That said, unless I have armour or heavy guns or FOOs when I fight with only just ground level Infantry I have serious problems even with HMG suppressive fire support when faced with protected enemy troops in foxholes, trenches and rubble etc.
-
Actually there is at least one gun that you can place in a building and lock it so that it can't be either moved or repositioned during the set up phases of further battles how ever many in an operation campaigne: the 88mm AAGs. Now that's gotta be a bug that not everyone is aware of. OTOH I don't know about any others for the Russians though I guess you could always check the unit info on the heavy stuff MPK, but I don't think they have one.
-
WTF our Aussie Army is actually properly equipt, bugger me stupid!
-
Bloody socialists!!!!Originally posted by Andrew H.:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Londoner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:
Politics are best left
</font>
-
I trust that some day, some how, you will get your chance to do WW2 East Front with the new engine. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:As a final aside -
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Eastern Front is still my #1 military passion and area of expertise.
-
I know what you mean no one but to be sure but I don't think the periphal vision retrictions either feel right nor allow me to function properly in Shoot'em up wargame simulations.
I have played a few such as "Vietcong", "Call of Duty", "Hidden and Dangerous" and "Black Hawke Down" to name the good ones that I own. There are lesser titles that I have that arn't so good although "Deadly Dozen: Pacific Theatre", was a surprizing pleasure at least for me. There are also a lot more on the market including some already relating to the Iraq War and that US Army game etc, but I haven't bothered with them yet.
On my problem with the lack of peripheral vision in these games IME particularly when the action becomes very fast, ie involving a swomping of storming by large numbers enemies, it just becomes too hard to be able to manage turning your view and dealing with all the enemies without getting shot etc.
Basically these are all shoot'em up simulation war games because you play them in the first person through only one actual soldiers perspective at a time and control his shooting of enemies. Anyway, this is the sense in which I am employing the term 'shoot'em up" wargame simulation here in this thread.
[ October 10, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
No, no I suggest that a few of us ought to take pictures of ourselves posing like this and then threatern the BFC that we'll all start swomping the forums with posts of them until there is the promise that some CMx1 improvement upgrades will be worked upon garenteed. ( Don't expect me to show some skin though, I'm too good looking, hehe.)
BTW when I asked if there will be a CMx1 version 1.4 some BFC replied categorically no, nope they are like totally done girlfriends with the CMx1 donk!
-
It seems that one needs to qualify critisizing US foreign policy and cultural imperialism with an appology or proclimation that one doesn't hate Americans beforehand or else the Anti-American gagging tag is applied.
I am a basher of Americana I admit it, but that doesn't make me an Anti-American or mean that I hate Americans per se. Of course I have no quams about being described as Un-Australian OTOH!
I support the War in Iraq because Saddam reminded me just too much of Stalin for one thing amoung many and unfortunately the Man of Steel died in his sleep rather than having been removed from his seat of totaliterian power. I just didn't believe in the WMD excuse or that it was a good policy descision to have persuaded the public to go to war on such a fabrication. Nor am I pleased about the Bushian nepotism towards Haliburton et al etc.
US foreign policy and the CIA has a lot to answer for with regard to pissing off a lot of people a round the World for their perceived sack of neccessity during and after the Cold War. They could learn a lot from a good rational study of the bad Nasi policies that created the impetus for a great many bads of partisans particularly on the Eastern Front etc.
-
I don't like shoot'em up wargames because they are either too scripted or acade gamey or both. I also don't like them because I find that I have a problem with the lack of peripheral vision when playing them no matter how good they are. It becomes necessary to learn the script and know where the enemy is or else to play at the more easier levels to servive long enough to return fire against new out of screen sight side enemies.
The third person overview of CMx1 IMHO solves this although perhaps better than is realistic with Borg spotting etc, but basically that is supposed to be fixed with CMx2 anyway. Still I am assuming that with the WEGO system and the unit control rather than the first person control of 1:1 representation the feel of CMx2 will not be arcade gamey shoot'em in style.
So I am wondering aside from the US Forces only focus of the first two CMx2 modules, which IMO will make it seem to me a bit too Close Combat mark IV for my liking, if others are of the same opinion about CM? :confused:
-
Oooh "A Rumor of War", great bloody read that, one of my favourites and it almost made me want to demand CM:PT (Pacific Theatre).
But yeah on the subject of this thread I'm for 'ear candy' radio traffic and some hand signaling to boot as well.
-
Same for wire and mines, they can't be moved either once placed anywhere by a player or the CPU AI opponent, especially if padlocked.
-
O'h I'm a bit in the first group and very definately in the second group to be sure but for leftist political and geo-political reasons as well. I have been recently reminded that a great professional Army was once lead by a mad man named Hitler who was, and I don't know if this needs to be pointed out, strangly more intelligent than the donkey who thought that he could get away with making up the excuse of WMDs.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:So far I've come across three types of "Political" comment,
Anti the scenario;- This tends to be more geoploitical like peoples assessment of the likelyhood of it, I myself have questioned the non inclusion of Israel and turkey, but I don't think that requires editting...
AntiAmerican Bias;- This is people who are upset that the focus is on US forces, and that is more a grip than a political thing.
Anti American;- This is a we don't like what you are doing in Iraq and we don't like you. So far I've seen only one or two incidences of that and they have been blasted from all side, so i'd tend to say let them say trhere worst and then drown them in the derision they deserve.
[ October 10, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
How about 'Blue on Blue' Styker Force invades Saudi Arabia in the very near future to stop them funding the insurgancy.
-
While I've been told to clear off from this thread some of my post has been discussed a bit so I feel that I ought to just clear up the emphasis that I meant in my point of view.
From my orrigional post above in this threadI can't believe that some BFCs expect all us foreigners and the Germanophiles to be comfortable having to reduce ourselves to playing only US Forces (and minor Arab Allies AIUI and WTF does anyone want to play them for - including most Arabs to be sure) you arn't even gonna be able to go British or the Israelis for veriety. That sucks for a near future Lavantine / Near East wargame simulation IMHO.
-
Chasing the Hare above...
3. I am wondering BFC how you can have Red on Red Quick Battles and the capacity to go the Syrians in user made Scenarios but still not be able to play a Campaigne as the Syrians?
I'm thinking of both (Edited) Battles and Operations for Solo play or single Human vrs another single Human on line or head to head and not of multi-player / team play.
I can understand that trying to participate in a multi-player game as the Syrians might be a bit impossible since I don't know any Arabic!
-
Thanx for the savoury pics and info fytinghellfish, I'm not much up on modern equipment really, this is all now looking a bit more interesting than I had thought that it might be.
-
I would have thought that it was more like 1 in 200 or 2000 for us Aussies and other CW dominion Countries.
BTW I don't no the words to the Australian National Anthum, I can't get past the "Our land is girt by sea", line nor get over it, hehe.
But then again that is the definition of how a patriotic an Aussie ought to be on the matter of singing let alone knowing those words to be sure.
-
At least CMSF isn't gonna be bloody shoot'em up game then Steve, so when I get my dose right I might bust up my own strike and descide to buy it anyway and suck on the US focus. That said I am broad minded enough that I am actually interested is modern / near future US tactics etc. I have avoided future warfare simulations in the past, because firstly I am mainly interested in historical re-creation and secondly I have a low opinion of most that I've seen of them. I pleadge my allegance to err... my complete confidence in the BFC designers producing a magnificient near future wargame and of actually making it exceptional enough beyond anything expected. I'm quite sure I'll enjoy it.
-
Dan which 1 in 20 Country are you referring to, Britain purhaps?Originally posted by KwazyDog:Personally I've never understood peoples concerns about playing another 'sides' country such as the Russians in CMBB as for me the game is about tactics, not national pride, but I guess its something I am used too, hehe.
Nien, nien I don't go the Russians in CMBB out of some feeling of national pride, I'm half Lithuanian so it can't be a matter of national pride to go the other 'side' for this Germanophile wargamer. I choose to go 'sides' including the Russians or the minor Axis in CMBB and all the different Allies in CMAK for all the different force structures and equipment and feel etc for re-creation and recreation.
BTW for an Aussie strangly I prefer going the NZers in CMAK because IMO their black and white shoulder patch looks cooler. So I ask you where's my National pride?
Edit: I'll take your abuse BFC since I deserve it, but please excuse me 'cos I've mucked up my meds! My main issue in the post above is with the free market not with you per se, it's a bit of a leftist student hangover, speaking of which... :cool:
[ October 09, 2005, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Dalem you just don't understand what it feels like to live in a Country that's practically the 51st State!
O.K. I admit that my use of the word 'force' for what the BFC were doing to me was wrong, but I used it for effect. Obviously neither they nor anyone else is forcing me to buy or not to buy McCMx2s, however they are making their descisions that indirectly shall limit my choices in the free market as a consumer, yada yada.
Now while I lay down on the couch I'll have to start to work through my CMx1 fixation issues, but I'm not paying you or the BFC $100 an hour!
-
Yes I did fytinghellfish but it seemed to me to be particularly relavent in this thread.
Your entitled to your opinion about the contents of my earlier post Ivan Drago but I stand by it especially my retarded, according to you, question about who would want to play militant Arabs against US & Arab Co Forces.
Certainly some terrorist might actually want to play that as a wargame, while a lot of US Army and other Country's professional Armed Forces instructors / trainers and combat testers might need to but I don't think that they would enjoy it so much that they would do so for the pleasure of it.
</font>
Poll for not liking shoot'em up wargames and why CM is the better tactical engine.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I've tried "Ghost Recon", thanx Bruce70, but I didn't like it much although I must admit that I didn't play it enough to form an authorative opinion really. It just didn't seem to suit my tastes, but if it's your thing then all the best.
Just to clarify with a bit of a definition of 'shoot'em up' wargame simulation' for this thread further:
I mean the RTS: Real Time Simulation, Single Character Wargames by this.
A computer game can be RTS without being a wargame necessarily, of course, such as a cops and robbers game (not that I can think of any) and even also be shoot'em up while OTOH still not being a wargame simulation to be sure.
BTW RMC I gather that FPS stands for First Person Simulation and if it does or is the correct technical shorthand for single character based gaming then yes this is what I do mean. Although Fighter Pilot sims such as "IL-2 Sturmovik", and all those WWI biplane, Battle of Britain and Jet Fighter-Bomber kind of games, while certainly somewhat FPS wargames I would not describe them as 'shoot'em ups' methinks.