juan_gigante
-
Posts
796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by juan_gigante
-
-
Michael, I'm sorry if I didn't make my comments clear enough - I was responding to Steve, not to you. It seemed to me that Steve's reply to your "each soldier can't have own movements" comment was "not necessarily". I thought that that would be really cool, and I wanted to know if that was really what he ment. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable for BFC to make a game that requires at least a pretty good computer to run it. Technology marches on, and I don't think BFC should waste their tme trying to make a game that would run on an old, 733 Mhz computer with 128 megabytes of RAM. (no offense to those who have that computer; until recently, I was one of you). Do I want the game to run on something less than a fairly new machine? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice that ability to maximize gameplay? Yes.
Cobalt makes a good point. I had never heard of that feature in Rome: Total War, but its a cool one, and there's no reason that an idiot like me can think not to have at least the visual effects for individual soldiers moving in CMX2 scalable.
And Dorosh, what's Christmas? When I was a kid, I noticed that all the stores were different during December, and lots of other people put trees in their houses, but whenever I asked my mommy or daddy about it, they would hit me. Can you explain?
-
I was just thinking about how cool it is that we, the customers, have an open forum like this to talk with the people creating the games we love. BFC, thank you so much. Few other companies who do or produce anything, from games to music to food, offer this kind of customer service and feedback. It's amazing.
Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on. You said nothing to contradict this. Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things? All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow.
-
I was just thinking about how cool it is that we, the customers, have an open forum like this to talk with the people creating the games we love. BFC, thank you so much. Few other companies who do or produce anything, from games to music to food, offer this kind of customer service and feedback. It's amazing.
Anyways, I find your comments interesting, Steve. Dorosh mentioned hundreds of guys on screen, all with their own little behaviorisms and thngs going on. You said nothing to contradict this. Am I correct in thinking that your silence is consent, that the CMX2 engine will be capable of modeling the, say, 300 guys on a battlefield ALL doing their own things? All taking cover where it appears, dragging wounded, firing, moving about, shouting orders, etc.? If so, wow.
-
Wouldn't it be funny if they announced a totally huge monster bone in, say, the "T-72 now shipping" thread, where no one would go to see it without knowing about it. In fact, maybe they already have...
-
Wouldn't it be funny if they announced a totally huge monster bone in, say, the "T-72 now shipping" thread, where no one would go to see it without knowing about it. In fact, maybe they already have...
-
And minigames! Hit the arrow keys in time to a beat, and something cool happens. Oh, this would be the best game ever. Also, Wolfenstein-style secret rooms that you open by pressing against the wall or, stay with me here, by blowing holes in specific points in the wall with the dozens of demo packs that you carry. The question is, how will we convince George Takai (Sulu from Star Trek) to be the narrator?
-
I think the real question would be whether it should be first person or third person perspective. See, with first person you get more immersion, but with third person, you get shoot dodges, "bullet time", and kung fu (or some Finnish martial art). Right now I'm thinking third-person, just so it is easier to implement hand-to-hand combat. Only one thing is for sure: Full Motion Video cuscenes, baby!
[ July 22, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ]
-
You would ride the reindeer in the requisite "rail shooter" portion where you follow a predetermined track at a predetermined speed and kill every one you see along the way. OR, it would be like in that crappy shooter Dead To Rights wherein you could sic your dog on a guy and the dog would run over and tear out the dude's throat. You would tell the reindeer to attack and he would charge and gore them with his antlers. OR the plot is that the evil maniacal scientist you are fighting is injecting poor innocent reindeer with his "Mega-Mutant" Serum, turning them into an army of super-soldier reindeer. There's a lot you can do with the topic. The most important part is that the protagonist talks to himself like in Duke Nukem and Dark Forces and such.
-
See Michael, for me it's the opposite. I want a near-future CMX2, and you want East Front 1939. You think that near-future could be handled well in OFP 2, and think an FPS where I could be an uber-Finn would be pretty much the coolest thing of all time. And they could still follow many FPS standby rules: your character could be shot 20 times before you die, you can carry 10 guns, you kill thousands of foes singlehandedly, etc. It would be called "Winter War" and the tagline would be "You're Finnished!!" and have a picture of a bare-chested Rambo-like fellow on skis with a Maxim machine gun in one hand and a panzerschrek in the other on the cover. It would fly off the shelves.
-
I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).
Right now, I'm wondering when BFC will announce at least the top five topic choices, if only so Dorosh might shut up, and we can narrow down the things we argue about. Plus, all the grogs will probably want to get a head start on reading up on everything there is to know about the topic.
So how about it, BFC? Just a top five list? It would make us all ever so happy.
-
I very much agree that CMX2-based game probably wouldn't work as well at a massive scale than on a small one. I was just kind of wondering. I think that a Napoleon or before era game would not be fun because it would not have tanks. Tanks, as I see it, are pretty integral to the CM games, and I can't envision a CM without tanks or a tank-like thing (in the case of SLoD).
Right now, I'm wondering when BFC will announce at least the top five topic choices, if only so Dorosh might shut up, and we can narrow down the things we argue about. Plus, all the grogs will probably want to get a head start on reading up on everything there is to know about the topic.
So how about it, BFC? Just a top five list? It would make us all ever so happy.
-
Keep in mind that several of those were bumped up from the depths of earlier this year by Dorosh so he could spew crazy ramblings about East Front 1939 and just be otherwise weird.
-
Which is, interestingly enough, BFC's member number. Coincidence? I think not!
-
I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles? And I assume that there might be some way to switch 1:1 representation to 1:3 or 1:5 or even 1:10 representation for those monster fights (like the 3 or 2 men per squad now).
I understand the ideas that you list as solutions to the problem, and they're good ones, but can you give us a clue as to which ones specifically (if not all) are probably going to be put into place in the game?
-
I've heard mention of on huge battles, having distant figures 2D sprites, and then as you get close they turn 3D. Is that sort of thing in for big battles? And I assume that there might be some way to switch 1:1 representation to 1:3 or 1:5 or even 1:10 representation for those monster fights (like the 3 or 2 men per squad now).
I understand the ideas that you list as solutions to the problem, and they're good ones, but can you give us a clue as to which ones specifically (if not all) are probably going to be put into place in the game?
-
I love playing all those Stalingrad city scenarios because they are rife with opportunites to close assault tanks. The only thing cooler than close assaulting tanks with engineers is doing it with flamethrowers. Fire!
-
Seanachai, I give you every assurance that I am not Gaylord, merely another half-wit (I like to think I am at least 3/4ths-wit, but that's just me). Is there any sort of proof I can give that this is not the case?
-
I too know little on the subject at the tactical level, so I would really be interested to know what could be done. Would there be enough skirmishes that a game do them, or would CMX2 work at more of a "Total War" series level? Really, what limitations are there on the engine? BFC, any clues? If I had a super incredibly powerful computer and a lot of time, could I actually run, say, all of the battle of Kursk?
-
I too know little on the subject at the tactical level, so I would really be interested to know what could be done. Would there be enough skirmishes that a game do them, or would CMX2 work at more of a "Total War" series level? Really, what limitations are there on the engine? BFC, any clues? If I had a super incredibly powerful computer and a lot of time, could I actually run, say, all of the battle of Kursk?
-
But usually when I see a squad take two casualties in close succession, it goes worse than a brief "shaken". Hell, even just the three blasts of 75mm would probably pin the guys if they were my infantry. Once I actually saw a squad broken after haven taken no casualties from a nearby explosion. That's regulars for you, I guess. Winmanx, I think you experience definately goes past luck. Was it a scenario or QB? Because I think that QBs can't have fanatic troops.
-
Maybe if we ignore his crazy ravings, he'll stop, or at least go to another thread.
I would be interested to know if anyone has seriously thought about a pre-modern times CMX2. Would Napoleonic wars or the like work well with CMX2? What would it be like? Would the lack of tanks make everything way worse? What about pre-gunpowder? The Crusades or even farther back, with Genghis Khan or something? I'm not recommending that as an excellent idea, I just wonder how well that would work in a CMX2 engine. Thoughts? Comments? Pie?
-
Maybe if we ignore his crazy ravings, he'll stop, or at least go to another thread.
I would be interested to know if anyone has seriously thought about a pre-modern times CMX2. Would Napoleonic wars or the like work well with CMX2? What would it be like? Would the lack of tanks make everything way worse? What about pre-gunpowder? The Crusades or even farther back, with Genghis Khan or something? I'm not recommending that as an excellent idea, I just wonder how well that would work in a CMX2 engine. Thoughts? Comments? Pie?
-
I was just wondering what was the longest assault move over open terrain that anyone has done. I ask this because oftentimes when I am about to have my infantry assualt the enemy, I wonder "Hmmm, 50 yards. Is it safe to assault over that long of a distance?"
Now, assault would be good because it has a morale bonus and your guys shoot a bunch. But it's bad because it takes a looooooooong time, exposing them to extra fire, and it is mega-tiring.
So, here's the situation. Your regular infantry platoon (no negative morale or tiredness) has to go 50 yards over totally open terrain to attack 2 slightly under-strength squads and an MG in woods. The enemy is suppressed, but not so heavily that you can guarantee that they won't pop up to shoot at juicy targets like your boys. What movement command would you use? Run for speed, assault for fire and morale, advance to split the difference, or sneak because you're dumb? Or something else?
-
Remeber that the first one pretty much has to be a big-money setting. After the first release's success and BFC has made billions of dollars, they can start dabbling in the weirdo crap that only grogs would want. After all, the whole point of modules is that they can do many different settings with less time between them.
CMX2: Can we get back to fantasising now?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Michael, I'm sorry if I didn't make my comments clear enough - I was responding to Steve, not to you. It seemed to me that Steve's reply to your "each soldier can't have own movements" comment was "not necessarily". I thought that that would be really cool, and I wanted to know if that was really what he ment. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable for BFC to make a game that requires at least a pretty good computer to run it. Technology marches on, and I don't think BFC should waste their tme trying to make a game that would run on an old, 733 Mhz computer with 128 megabytes of RAM. (no offense to those who have that computer; until recently, I was one of you). Do I want the game to run on something less than a fairly new machine? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice that ability to maximize gameplay? Yes.
Cobalt makes a good point. I had never heard of that feature in Rome: Total War, but its a cool one, and there's no reason that an idiot like me can think not to have at least the visual effects for individual soldiers moving in CMX2 scalable.
And Dorosh, what's Christmas? When I was a kid, I noticed that all the stores were different during December, and lots of other people put trees in their houses, but whenever I asked my mommy or daddy about it, they would hit me. Can you explain?