Jump to content

yllamana

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yllamana

  1. I'm curious about that too. I feel like the UI could do a lot more to help in that department, like having a terrain grid overlay. It leads into the complaints about the camera, really - getting a good view of the folds in the terrain is just awkward and you have to do a lot of it to play well. Oh, I can totally see how people would disagree - it's very subjective. As someone who wants to have fun playing the game but doesn't want to leave out her friends to do it, I feel solid multiplayer functionality is more important than breadth of other features. I'd rather have a game that I can
  2. If I ever make a game with a single player WeGo-like system and multiplayer I promise the WeGo-like system will also work in multiplayer. Realistic wargames aren't really one of my central interests, though, so it's not likely I ever would. It looks like there might be a niche for someone there though! Realistic wargame that prioritises fun multiplayer gameplay over fidelity of simulation! I find simulation really interesting in general and I have a big soft spot for extremely cute tiny tanks, which Battlefront is the recognised industry leader in producing. I agree. That's why I take
  3. As always, YMMV. But you can buy a game for $10 off Steam and it'll have better presentation right off the bat than a CMx2 game. I mean, seriously? A static background picture that doesn't even take up the screen, making it immediately look like the game is running in some kind of postage stamp resolution? A completely inefficient UI that isn't even suited for real-time play and ignores genre conventions? Unwieldy camera controls? I can get past that sort of thing. I think the game is really cool, so I just look past it. But that doesn't mean everyone else will, and some of these things - t
  4. I might respond to the other post later, but your somewhat insulting post aside - if the engine was designed from the ground up to have TCP/IP WeGo, why do you constantly refer to it as some herculean feat that will drain huge amounts of resources from everything else? I mean, you already have multiplayer WeGo. You already have TCP/IP real-time play. I obviously don't know the intricacies of your engine, but from where I'm standing it looks like almost all the pieces are already in place if you were designing it with it in mind from day one. On its own real-time TCP/IP should be significantly
  5. It's not very surprising that a series with historically poor multiplayer support is primarily played single player. I primarily play CMSF single player - not because I prefer single player games but because its multiplayer support is so poor. People who regularly play online with friends are sort of locked out of the game since it's not one you can blow through in two hours but it's also difficult to play online with anyone. Your choice is playing CMSF or playing with your friends. You can see which one will win out most of the time, and that makes it not worth buying for lots of people who o
  6. I totally agree with this and feel the same way. CMx2 is a million times more fun in WeGo because even if you can pull off playing in real time you miss almost all the detail doing so. Part of the fun of the Combat Mission games is watching the replays back from all the different angles, zooming in and locking to units to appreciate that detail. It also lets you see the game from the angles it looks best at - close up - instead of the ones other games focus on and do better. Lack of TCP/IP WeGo with replay is a huge black mark against the game and I don't really see why the engine wasn't
  7. (Sorry to just quote the one when many people responded similarly!) Oh, there are definitely some of those types. Personally I don't think attacking them is a great idea either, but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is people who seem to be on a hair trigger and get set off by good criticism too. The interesting thing is that these same people can often be very good and productive posters, but this inability to let criticisms of the game stand does hurt the forum and drive posters away, I think (it certainly makes me want to post less). Even that paragraph of mine produced some
  8. I think the board would be helped if the attitude of some posters was a bit friendlier. In particular, I've seen people get flat out attacked for criticising the game. Guys... it's okay for people to criticise the game. Really. Battlefront are tough, they can deal. It's fine to see a post where someone points out something wrong with the game and say, well, that personally doesn't matter to me, but I guess it matters to this person, so I am just going to respectfully not reply and let their point stand. Re: the game in general, I think CMx2 in particular tries pretty hard to put players off
  9. It would just let a player pause the game when they want, and then both players would have to unpause to resume, probably, with a very brief countdown? It'd be easily abused, but I think the main recourse there would be to not play with that person. With people who didn't it'd be invaluable in non-tiny games. There's no WeGo TCP/IP. There's still WeGo single player and PBEM. Battlefront have said that they might be able to provide TCP/IP WeGo without playback at some point (though I'm not sure that would be for CMBN), but it seems to me that no playback is sort of missing part of what makes
  10. Cooperative play is my #1 most desired feature too. Honestly, it's very hard (or impossible) to sell the game to friends when there's no way for us to play together. Whether that's against the computer or other people, the rest of the game being awesome doesn't matter if there's no way to play that they're very interested in. Of course, for good coop the AI not being as dumb as a brick would probably help too. In a CMSF campaign mission the other day I fought the computer into a surrender, then looked at the map and saw a full-strength, full ammo enemy ATGM team dutifully covering the 8m be
  11. Maybe there's a compelling reason why not, but wouldn't a good way to get a rough feel for the way a vehicle is armoured be to have a 3d, rotatable representation of the vehicle's hull colour-coded for thickness (e.g. deep red for thin armour, green for thick)? It could have a little labeled scale at the bottom, maybe, so that you could see what the colours corresponded to. It could even be effective thickness if you wanted. You'd need a little bit of background knowledge to interpret it, but it should be pretty clear. For the guns, why not a small graph of penetration vs range? It se
  12. Yes, exactly. People playing and enjoying the game more is a win. It means they're more likely to buy the next one and to recommend the game to others. People are able to afford two systems with all the money saved from not buying the same games twice.
  13. AI War didn't originally use Unity - it used to use what I believe was their own engine. AFAIK one of the big reasons they switched to Unity was to be able to make the Mac version. I could be wrong on that score, though. I haven't heard anything about them going bankrupt. I think Tidalis may have not sold as well as they hoped - I know they're putting more focus on marketing for their new titles and see that as a key cause of its lower-than-expected sales, and they've picked up a new staff member to address that. Anyway, all that aside, as I said in my first post in this thread it's not
  14. How the heck is $60USD "free"? And yes, there are games on Steam that let you play both the Mac and PC version. There are also other games that let you play both - I know Arcen's games, Tidalis and AI War, let you play on either platform once you've bought the game. You already paid once, so why would you pay them again? Let's not forget the reigning champion of multi-platform games, Blizzard, who do not charge anything extra for playing their game on whatever platforms you like right off the disc. In general, the companies that separate Mac and PC versions of the game do so because they
  15. Just to provide feedback as a potential user of the Mac version - I'm a little disappointed to hear it'll be a separate purchase to the Windows one. Years of bad ports have left me jaded and I'm now more likely to buy a Windows version to play on my Mac, with the expectation that it'll probably run better and potentially get better support, too. With dual-platform games from developers like Blizzard I do enjoy being able to play on the MacOS. I might be willing to pay a nominal amount extra for a dual-platform license ($10, say?) but not $60, and even a nominal fee could look a bit much ne
  16. Wow! With this thing there aren't really any complaints that can be made about the load time anymore. It's completely fine now! (OS X too) Great job.
  17. I didn't think it was a very good review. It didn't really seem to say much about the game itself or about what it was meant to be like and how it supposedly didn't meet that standard. I really don't want to dismiss the review out of hand, but I don't see any real justification for its scores. Sound: 1? What? Most of the sounds are at worst perfectly serviceable, and at best quite good. I would have thought that a game getting a "1" score in something would mean that element was actually so bad that it detracts from the game (eg. the sounds being actually annoying) and while DT's could prob
  18. if only it were that easy! I have noticed that I have better peripheral vision than forward. As I move along in a tank, I am always seeing red triangles to my sides, but as I turn toward them to scope they disappear. This is happening alot and can be quite distracting. </font>
  19. Thanks, Hub & the other people working on making cool mods. Your dedication and enthusiasm are wonderful.
  20. Yes, pilgrim. I think the main silliness that people object to in the current system is one vehicle inside an objective that is covered in defenders scoring points at a tremendous rate. The best example I can think of is that map with the objective point on the hill in the middle (greenish+desertish map, ion bases in northwest and southeast). If the teams are mostly bots then the attackers nearly always win because the defenders, while they may have superior force on the hill, will never clear all the attacking forces out of the small area to the south of the hill that they don't have LoS to.
  21. You can read them in any text editor. There are probably some better programs for it that someone could point you to, but I just open them in Xcode. Anything that can read text should be fine.
  22. Bacchus Strikes Back From Beyond the Grave This one's a little silly and I'm not sure if this is a feature or not. The Bacchus fires in REALLY long bursts with the rotary, and the rotary keeps firing after the vehicle dies. Both the vehicles in question are visible in the pic. Glitched Sky and Water (extra pic facing the sun) This one map (I'm not sure of the name, I'm sure you can tell which from the picture since you all know them better than I do) had totally broken sky and water. Dropship Texture Gunsight This one is from Netherby. Instead of having the proper graphic zooming in o
  23. I can't even turn on foliage on my computer. Interesting implication that this somehow makes me a cheater. As long as it doesn't have big performance implications, I don't mind. As it stands the big framerate drops for me tend to occur what seems to be the first time something happens on a map (e.g. when the deployment phase is over and the dropships appear, I get a big lag - also seems to happen when anything new appears for the first time, including explosions and units). I think it could be nice to have foliage if that was possible, as long as it was done efficiently to avoid much i
  24. Yesterday I was stalking a jittery Mercury that ran around a lot with my rifle squad. I ended up doing a truly inspiring shot with a single ATG from over 400m away, right up its tailpipe - BOOM, gone in one hit. I had no idea such a thing was even possible. The page is good. I especially like the part explaining the infantry's capabilities. I don't think you linked the capabilities enough with the tactics. e.g. why are they stealthy? Why are they highly mobile? I think you left out the magic boots that can scale any surface, too. It should be a good help to beginners, though.
  25. Well, it sounds very interesting. Thought: how will adding new vehicle types interact with the custom inventory settings in the game already? It would seem you'd want the new vehicles in scenarios using the default inventory settings, but maybe not in scenarios using custom ones (like the weird ones with no Thors and very limited numbers of everything else). I would guess that a fair approximation would be to include the default number on maps using the standard settings but to not include any on maps that use any custom inventory settings. I don't know how DropTeam scenarios work, thoug
×
×
  • Create New...