Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

LukeFF

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,901

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by LukeFF

    A long delayed update

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    On 6/13/2018 at 11:23 PM, Michael Emrys said:

    I don't use Windows; I'm on a Mac, a fact that I have announced probably a hundred times on this board. And yes I know all about startup items. But that is irrelevant since I rarely start up my Mac, but simply rouse it from sleep. But that damned Steam ap interrupted me for minutes at a time whenever I was using my Mac and it felt like doing so. So you smart ass Windows users can just crawl back in your caves and stop mocking me.

    :angry:

    Michael

    I think someone is having a bad day. 

    0

    Barbed Wire

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted · Edited by LukeFF

    13 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Wonder if the issue is that BF wants to avoid the nightmare of ISIS or similar using such an enhanced modern game for their own propaganda purposes.  Actually am surprised we haven't seen it already as it's easily possible by using mods to create ISIS-promoting scenarios. 

    Once again, you aren't paying attention to what's already been said numerous times: Battlefront is sticking to the timeline of the story, and that's that. Adding "just this one thing" (continually) adds to the development time, and BF doesn't want that at all. 

    And, if it's so easy to mod in, why haven't we seen any ISIS scenarios from you? 

    0

    After the battle ends you should be able to keep going.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Assuming that there are no impractical programming problems, any game system should be about giving players choices. 

    No one is preventing a player from ending a scenario "on time".  But, for many of us we would like the choice of extra time - sometimes to execute our brilliant plans to conclusion, other times cos we are playing more carefully/slowly than the designer intended and we want to see if we can succeed while keeping friendly casualties low.  To some that may seem "pointless", to others its "fun".

    As has been said countless times already, nothing's stopping you from opening up the editor and pushing out the mission time to the max.

    0

    After the battle ends you should be able to keep going.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Erwin said:

    This has been a frustration ever since CM2 superceded CM1.  In CM1 it was normal to have to fight to the end as victory calculations changed slowly as one ground away at the enemy.  In CM2 it is common that the AI will surrender before one gets to the "fun" part of implementing one's plan.  If one saves every turn in a CM2 game it's not uncommon to go from a defeat to a respectable victory cos of the loss of one unit.  CM1 is akin to an older aircraft where changes occurred slowly and it is very forgiving or errors.  CM2 is like a jet with controls that need a computer to master as it is so unstable in terms of a small movement making a huge difference, and one error can cost you the game.

    "Reality" is boring and frustrating and often not fun.  However, this is a game that most of us (I think...  I hope...) play for fun and relaxation.  So, I agree with DG that this kind of "coitus interruptus" is annoying.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anything can be done about it with the CM2 engine.  Hence my hope for significant improvements in CM3.

    You know, you can always reinstall CM1 if it interferes with your fun that much.

    0

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Apples & Oranges fella.....MiG-3 was an early war type with a high-altitude role

    That's why I said "the only high-altitude fighter they had during the war." I didn't refer to any particular time period.

    13 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Late war Yak-3s & La-7s were quite capable up to 30000ft+, more than adequate for the bulk of the US heavy bomber force

    Quite capable? Seriously, where are you drawing this info from? The La-7 topped out at 6000 meters and was a low-mid altitude interceptor. Yak-3? Shorted-ranged, low-medium altitude, lightly-built fighter. It sure as heck wasn't designed to take on enemy bombers at 30,000 feet. You're giving Soviet fighter designers far more credit that they deserve.

    2
×
×
  • Create New...