Guderian's Duck
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Guderian's Duck
-
-
I'm just wondering why the same modular approach that the Combat Mission series now uses is not used with this game?
It seems like a perfect fit for Theatre of War.
-
Moral of story:
Don't get in a tank and fight the US. Use IED instead.
-
Here, here.I personally wouldn't mind seeing a few well-or-badly done CM rip-offs on the market.
Imitation hasn't exactly hurt the FPS and RTS genres, has it?
-
The CDV versions are the ones in the anthology pack, right?Are the Digital down loads of the various CM's the uncensored Battlefront versions or the CDV versions with all the edits?
In what way have they been edited?
-
Isn't that the entire point of Battlefront's new modular approach?I was curious if there was anyone besides me that would be willing to pay for mini-updates to CMX2 games.
-
So how about it?
-
Some non-PC suggestions:
Combat Mission: Operation Syrian Freedom
Combat Mission: Syrian Crusade
Stryker Brigade - Force of the Future
Neocon Wars part III: Operation Damascus
Combat Mission: Jihad
Combat Mission: Shlock Farce
-
But does that include the majority of hastily trained junior officers in world war two?No good officer would ask for a repeat of the last transmission.
-
As I understand a 120mm DU shell hitting a t-72 easily flipped the turret.
As I understand it it was/is actually pretty common due to the poor ammo protection in the Soviet tanks.Still not common enough to waste programing time or space over.
The splinters from the DU rounds would frequently ignite the ammo and the overpressure from the explosion would blow the turret off.
-
The problem with that game is that you have to slow it down to half the default speed to make it realistic. Fortunately it's fairly easy to mod (via text files).I tried Rome Total War a while ago and didn't like it...
But the graphics and the interface are really state-of-the-art for wargames as far as I'm concerned, which isn't so strange considering their budget is probably equal to all other wargame developers put together. Anyway, you can see a lot of work went into the interface and the controls.
-
I really like how air support works now. It's just as unexpected and inaccurate as it should be.
Air support and (especially) artillery are two areas where Combat Mission really moved the goalposts forward. And "realistic" in the case of world war two close air support means not very effective.
-
Ok, if you say so. But the brown-green colours and the Il-2s really had me fooled for a while.Doesn't look like Il-2 graphics at all (and isn't).
Well, yes and no. Designing the graphics engine and the 3D models is certainly one of the most expensive and time-consuming parts of making a game.And no, just because you have a 3d engine doesn't mean that you've got most of the work needed for a game done. Actually that is very far from the truth.
I can think of several possibilities, including the most obvious one which is of course a wargame.First of all - what type of game would it be?
-
I understand and agree with the argument about view restrictions, but it should never be an excuse for clunky camera controls.
In Rome Total War there are several ways the user can restrict the camera (and thereby the access to information), like the "Restricted Camera" where you can't move the camera too far from your own units or the "General Camera" where your viewpoint is slaved to the general's unit and can't be raised above shoulder level.
The last mode is a lot of fun when you gallop around the battlefield like a madman to try and control the troops! The need for a pre-battle plan is certainly brought home.
In fact I believe something precisely like these restrictions would suit Combat Mission very well. There's a demo available for Rome Total War so you can try it if you haven't already. It's almost worth it for the camera controls alone.
-
Aha. But why not make a game while they're at it? They seem to have done most of the work already.Pics are from a Finnish multimedia DVD (www.suomensodat.com) that lets the users view some of the Continuation War battles in 3D.
And it is the Il-2 engine in some form, right?
-
Which game is that???
It looks a lot like Il-2, but the interface is different. Wartime Command maybe?
-
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but Rome Total War has an absolutely amazing view system that I think should be adopted as a universal standard. It takes you from high up and almost top-down to ground level totally seemlessly and without you almost noticing it.You have to find a way (another toggle?) to get view direction control into the mouse so that you can move around the CM landscape the way you move around in an FPS. This is essential for figuring out what is where in terms of being under cover or being exposed.
I don't play FPS games so I can't recommend how to go about this, but I'm sure the mechanics are well developed. Adopt them.
What they do is simply use standard FPS movement controls (WASD keys) for moving the camera back-forward and rotating it, the mouse wheel for height adjustment, and mouse movements for fint tuning and lateral movement. The WASD keys combine seamlessly with the mouse movements and make it an extremely intuituive system.
It is by far the best camera system I have used in any game and others would do well to simply copy it.
Why not modular?
in Theatre of War
Posted
I know, but since it's been "Battlefrontized" anyway I was curious why they didn't copy CM's new modular approach too. The CM developers have made a very good case why they switched from huge releases to a modular approach.Anyway, it may simply be that they don't want it to run parallel with the CM series when it returns to WWII.