Cornfleek
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cornfleek
-
-
Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by seppDieter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Thus in all things, in wisdom, courage, force, knowledge of our own streams, and success, the Dutch have the best of us, and do end the war with victory on their side.
-Samuel Pepys
OUCH! come on elmar, how can you use that profile when your army could only hold back the germans for 4 daysOriginally posted by user73:And to your profile,what we german some times like to tell the dutch : Nur vier Tage ...
while your dear belgian neighbours held 18 days with a smaller army, smaller country, against a much larger german force
</font> -
LOS is NOT available to real men in the field? WTF? As in real men in the field are not able to assess what they see and cannot see if it's hidden? Oh well, who needs an LOS tool anyway, if this tool will just pierce through 3 trees and say, yes, the enemy can see you.Originally posted by HardRock:LOS is a sterile wargaming tool not available to real men in the field.
LOS in ToW is a sterile wargaming approximation resulting in see through trees, not available to real men in the field.
-
Blindly bought the game as well without buying demo, my bad really, but I'm dissappointed as well. It's mostly my mistake though, I thought Battlefront & 1C automatically meant this would be a great game for me. I've just reread some statements on this game, and in my blind enthousiasm I've started believing/hoping this game was more then it was. Here's a quote by Moon on the game:
"We’re excited and thrilled about the end product which is building a bridge between fun and fast real-time action while at the same time presenting the player with a credible simulation of World War Two combat from all the European fronts."
A credible simulation. Not historically accurate, not real-life and everything as it really was, but credible. What they basically say is that this is codename panzers / blitzkrieg / company of heroes (or what ever that RTS mumbo jumbo is called), but made credible. And that's exactly what they've made, so let's give up on moaning about money back, you thought you'd get something different from what they promised you. Your mistake, my mistake, but hey, that's life.
*starts lurking @ CMC forums again*
-
Problem with this game is that for every "smart move" there's quite a few silly ones. Take the ridiculous french infantry charge that happens every friggin time. The come charging through open fields towards parked tanks... wtf?Originally posted by Bloodstar44:I have seen nice feature in Dunkirk mission which suggests that AI is not so dumb.
Did anyone ever have those infantry protecting the atg's? (since general consensus is that you should kamikaze charge the atg's with inf after you've taken out the "ai" kamikaze charge). A puzzle game that looks incredibly well, that's what this is.
-
It's in development. Part of the reason so many existing CC3 owners were willing to fork out on CoI was to help finance it. </font>Originally posted by Hertston:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robban:
? will there be a REAL CC VI?
-
^^^^^^^^Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:I don't particularly like the game and I didn't think I would based on the videos I had seen prior to release.
But I got it anyway to support BFC and along the way I've learned a lesson.
what he said. I'll give ToW a go again in a patch or two.
-
Been there 2 months ago, she's still there.
They pulled her out of the river where it ended up during battle by the way.
-
Depends what you look at:Originally posted by MikoyanPT:Comparing ToW with close combat ?
They are a century apart, why bother !
Welcome to the new century.
Graphics ToW > CC
AI ToW = CC
Gameplay Tow < CC
* edit, ok, lets be reasonable here, this situation goes for this version of ToW, BF & 1C might pull a rabbit out of the hat and actually improve AI & gameplay.
-
-
I can't imagine building entry will be patched in. This has been a design decision, and would have been sorted out ages ago if it was feasible to do so. My guess is that they're not able to make the infantry actually use the houses in a proper way using windows, doors and such. Close combat nailed that one, Squad Assault failed at it, and they didn't even try with this game (which might have been a good decision).
And there is no city fighting because of this. It's all rolling hills with some trees and bushes (that don't do much at the moment for cover and such) and trenches and more trenches and then some trenches. Its a bit like WWI in that respect...
Given the fact that tanks have no problem shooting through rows and rows of trees at the moment, I don't think that smoke will stop them. Besides that, my guess is they did not forget to include smoke, they looked at it and decided not to.
Don't try to compare this to CC, you'll get disappointed (I know I did). This game is good for medium distance tank battles and has got loads of eye candy. It's most definitely not an infantry game.
-
Three things perhaps to come back to original post:
1. The suicidal habits of entrenched infantry ("Geee, I wonder were all that MG racket flying over my head is coming from, let's have a look, ah, a tank! wonderful, lets make it feel the wrath of my rifle! ploink, aaaargh, end of infantry)
2. the lack of in terrain cover messes up the infantry game as well, I had a squad in a village, a bunch of enemy infantry crossed an open field towards the village, nobody else there, my infantry positioned around houses with sheds and gardens and what not, it becomes a 50-50 shoot out, since defenders don't have any advantage.
3. The AI also seems incredibly clueless what to do with infantry, for example the ridiculous french AI infrantry charge at the beginning of Dunkirk, ah, 5 pz's, lets cross this open field and run towards them! I've also seen attacking AI infantry move parallel to entrenched defending infantry in an open field at 200 m away dozens of time, flanking is something you do out of harms way, not through a haze of bullets.
-
Reminds of I think a D-Day story where an allied tank was driving slowly past some allied infantry, but was heading to a road covered by an atg. Tanker couldn't hear their shouts & were buttoned up, infantry jumped in front of the tank, no response. I think they resorted to hitting the tank with the buts of their rifles or so.Originally posted by ZaPPPa:LoS needs to be overhauled. Infantry don't stand a chance against a tank, because the tank has the same visibility as an infantry man though a tank commander is looking through a tiny slit. This takes away the tanks natural weakness, which unbalances the game tremendously.
Damn, I'm a crap storyteller
-
Runs as smooth as can be.
full game on 1280x1024
AMD 3500+
Geforce 7900 256 mb
2 gb ram
-
I was playing Close Combat Cross of Iron this evening instead of ToW and I didn't even receive my hardcopy yet
, only got the download so far...My guess is the game might improve with a patch or two, though it's not the CC 3d that quite a few people were hoping for. Oh well, I'll archive the hardcopy together with Eric Young's Squad Assault: Westfront, another contender to the crown that didn't make it....
My men of Korpsabteilung "F" have to be led into battle (talk about immersive campaign briefings, check CCCoI)!
*clicks on cc3.exe*
-
Battlefront is not really to blame, they saw potential in the game, thought they could fix it, and uhm, it did not fully turn out as expected I think. Some people will definitely love it, so good job on that part, it's more rts than a sim, that's all. I just like to think that my money spend on this game will be put on the "CMC investment account".
-
Moon allready acknowledged that some of the concerns of the playerbase were on the priority list of the patch to come. All I remember is that waypoints were on it, search through some Moon posts, you'll prolly find it somewhere. He also stated somewhere that he was very surprised by the laser-guided tank gunners in the finished game (or at least in the demo I think, but IMHO it's also in the full version), so that will probably be on the list as well.
-
I've did my ranting a bit random so far, but this seems to be the right place. Dissapointed in the game as well, and I don't believe that the essentials will get fixed. BF tried to fix a broken game, and they didn't pull it off. I've bought it without thinking, and no regrets, I'll probably play it a bit (allthough the call of Close Combat Cross of Iron is tempting), since it looks nice, and there will be some "hehe, nice" moments, but this is not what I hoped it was (close combat 3d).
I don't mind paying for the game since I hope BF will use their money wisely and invest in CMSF & CMC. Please don't put too much effort in this game, I feel it will never be great.
-
That unmanning/manning atg glitch sort of helps, but once the pz's know you are there manning the gun, they home in on you with laser MG fire like there's no tomorrow. You unman and they stop firing...Originally posted by Boris Balaban:I tried to unman my AT guns 2 times and both times when I tell the crew to reman the AT gun it brings MG fire from the tanks and again the 5 tanks mass fire on one gan and when it is taken out they direct fire on the other AT gun. I still was not able to kill any tanks.
I would never pick that field to defend against tanks. Too flat.
Apparently the AI is perfectly able to tell if an ATG is manned or not, which is weird, since most of the crew is hiding behind the shield. Living crew behind an ATG is either not possible to spot or too low a priority, but once the ATG is manned, they know where the atg is. I think the AI spotting should be eitherwise tweaked to give ATG"s more chance of at least a first shot, or give the AI priority to destroy unharmed unmanned equipment. Apparently the AI does not see any harm in an ATG with crew 2 meters behind it, but goes cyborg laser beserk on it if you are behind that shield.
Unless C1/BF didn't want the AI to destroy unmanned equipment, because everybody is apparently all hyped up about manning and unmanning equipment, so they've put destroying unmanned equipment as a no go for AI...
Maybe we should introduce healthbars anyways (is it me or do soldiers always get severely injured before they die?), if gamey concepts like manning enemy equipment are the standard nowadays?
[/rant off]
-
But this is exactly why ambushes are made impossible in this game. I've setup a tank in a hull down position just behind a hill, enemy pz's are moving in exposing their flank travelling down a road around a bend, all the tank had to do was wait for the pz's to roll into perfect flank shot position (out of sight of enemy pz's), my tank got really exited and decided to drive over the hill, stop half way with multiple pz IVC's blazing away at him. This was a rather experienced t34 crew that had been through 3 battles allready or so... They were toast obviously.Originally posted by Elvis:I disagree. I don't want my units to default in the hold position. If I am busy doing something I want them doing what the AI thinks they should do.
AI messing up "real WW2 tactics" (as it's being advertised) means the game is nothing more than a simple ww2 rts without healthbars...
-
Hmmmm... Paradox & CMx2....
Forget CMC, bring on Hearts of Iron III with CMx2 battles...
*drewls over keyboard*
-
I need CMC
-
* gets all excited and runs after it for half a mile and then sees it blow away by cold gush of wind into an empty horizon *
-
did i just register to tell you i agree? :eek:Originally posted by scottie:im so excited about CMC im checking this forum everyday for news now ! .... god damn it battlefront wish you had not told us about this until it was finished
guess i did
About LOS/LOF problems (from devs)
in Theatre of War
Posted
LOS in ToW is a sterile wargaming approximation resulting in see through trees, not available to real men in the field. </font>