Cid250
-
Posts
257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cid250
-
-
Only problem there, German uniforms weren't grey in 1944. I understand the Dutch (or was it the Belgians?) nicknamed their occupiers 'cucumbers' due to their cucumber-green wool uniforms.
Feld Grau is more like green-grey, not blue-grey.
Feldgrau
HEX: #4D5D53
RGB: 77/93/83
Yes, they were nicknamed cucumbers for a reason.
-
Will the Wehrmacht soldiers carry their rifles in their dominant-hand during Quick movement as was the norm for such troops?
You mean this way?
-
I know, this has been discussed already time ago. But today I was playing again CMSF after a long break (Nvidia lighting issue) and I was thinking "this is the only thing I would add to the game engine".
You are playing in a large map (there are lot of them). Or you are closing on some units. You hear an explosion, a vehicle has been hit. But what? where?
Situational awareness, will say someone. Ok, but in reality after some time I would have some status/report message, some info...
I think that an event log would add a lot to this engine. Similar to the one of the Close Combat series: stating relevant events with different colours. Completed movement orders in green; enemy spotted in yellow; damage taken in orange; kills taken in red.
And the best would be if clicking on a message you could centre the map on the relevant spot... it would be fantastic.
Then, if you think this would make things simpler, I have another idea: let messages appear in the message log with some delay, or better, with a delay depending on the C&C status of involved units! This would be very realistic.
Keep up the good work BF.
This can be only better, if they can save the Log in text format after battle end...
Including info about casualities, ammo status, damage, and state of fatigue...
With such info... may be some day a third party development team, can take this log info for a new Combat Mission Campaigns.
-
I will love to sign for a Q4 2011 release if they add TCP/IP WEGO
-
Note that with Afghanistan done and NATO nearly so... Normandy will get it's time in the spotlight soon!
Steve
Well... i always requested a long development cycle... because i know that the longer that it takes, the more features that will be included... and CMBB was a huge game with a lot of features.
I was one of those customers more happy with a 2011 release than with a 2010 release.
But since you said that the final engine features were all included in CM:Noname... and Nato & Afganistan doesn't need to keep the focus anymore...
It's time to show what we can expect as customers for a good WWII wargame.
No need to keep your cards close to your chest anymore, since when you do a feature freeze, the people that will buy it, will do it... the people that don't, will not.
A feature list, is much better than any pic for a serious wargamer.
-
If you doesn't model beach landings in some way... expect the name of Normandy to be a bit disapointing for a lot of teenagers.
CM: West Front 1944 or CM: European West Front 1944, are better names if you consider including several modules... Operation Cobra, Market Garden, The Bulge, etc...
-
Considering that CM:Normandy still will need a lot of work to be in a equal level of quality and features than the old CMBB and CMAK... it's hard to think in a strategic layer.
Even if they consider to open some SDK about external public interfaces and data conections to battle setups and victory results (including status of the units after battle)... it will need the interest of a good third party developer that consider something of the scope of Combat Mission Campaigns... where details like comunications links on the field by runners, wire, radio, etc... were planified as part of the proyect.
-
That's the link to the CPU specs. I guess that it is 64bits technology.
Doesn't matter if your CPU is 64 bits, but you Operating System is not... You are in some way throwing money to the trash can with your 64bits CPU if you install WinXP 32 bits.
You will need to update some day to Windows 7 64 bits if you want to use more than 3GB of RAM.
To Stick with a 32 bits operating system today in a "New Computer" is a bad choice... for a gaming computer you will need +4Gb of RAM sooner than later.
-
Should be fine. D/L a Shock Force demo to be sure.
Can I ask why the odd RAM gig number? Why not go to 4?
May be he is still attached to a 32bit operating system... you must jump into a 64bits operating system to handle properly any GB of Ram over 3Gb...
I've moved myself to 64bits tree years ago (WinXP64 in the beginning, and now with Windows 7 64bits, and Debian 64bits)... i can't be more happy with my 8Gb of RAM being used to full power when i do a RAM intensive task, like CAD etc...
-
The weak point it's in the Graphics Card... too much CPU and not so high GPU.
It feels like unbalanced power CPU vs GPU.
A 9500GT will be enought for CM, but in other games it will be in the low end... for example good simulators to be released this year, like Storm of War: Battle of Britain.
May be if you can save a bit in CPU, you can raise the power of your GPU to a more well balanced gaming computer.
-
Why would anyone pay $60 for a game that sells for $45?
How can you know the price of a game not yet released?
-
"There is only one chance for a good first impression."
-. Mr Obvious .-
Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached over 80% of messages about CM:Normandy in the top ten posts of this forum.
This is a symptom of impatience, but it is good to pay attention to the words of Mr Obvious.
If you do a google search for CMSF reviews... you will find a lot of negative ones...
To wait more months for a very polished product, is more important than some people may think.
The more features included, the better...
"There is only one chance for a good first impression."
More premature releases, no thanks!.
Many people don't pay 60 bucks for a game that it's valued arround 7/10 in many reviews...
A lot of people will pay those 60 bucks if they read every review and find a splendid score of 9/10.
Mouth to mouth publicity and positive feedback in the internet forums, also works this way...
The release day is the most important chance for a good start.
Yeah!, it's obvious ... but often overlooked due to time pressures and impatience.
-
Mmm. . . I read the start of the thread
"All we're saying at this point is 2009, sooner is better for everybody than later. We're saying sometime in 2009, that's all at the moment. Progress is going very well"
If we deleted 09 and inserted 10 do you think it would be accurate?
The more that it takes the better... it means that it will be closer to the high quality reached with CMBB & CMAK with their final patchs.
-
Another +1 to TCP/IP WeGo
Me too...
And i'm a PBEM-WEGO taliban!.
In the spanish community is by far more popular the good old CMx1 than CMSF... at the present days the main Ladder event it's done with CMx1 games... CMBB & CMAK. They are the king of the hill and you can't consider them a "tiny comunity"... the activity in modern CMx2 CMSF for Player vs Player is really poor... and i mean "really" poor... you just need to do a search in the forums of the spanish comunity to see the evident!.
The reality of Player vs Player activity in CMx1 (more than 90 players actually involved):
The details are at the very bottom of the page: :: Players: 423 (Active: 92 Inactive: 331):: Registered Items: 4396:: Finished games: 4392::
Do a search for CMSF, you will never see that high multiplayer activity even at present days. CMSF is played only in tiny tournament events with very few players interested on it (only 10 players):
So CMx1 (CMBB & CMAK) wins to CMx2 CMSF (and all his modules) by a factor of 92:10, in other words, the old CMx1 is at least 9,2 times better than the modern one in Player vs Player activity at the present day. And if we consider historical activity, the factor is increased to a 423:10 factor... so the CMx1 Player vs Player system is 42,3 times better than CMSF if we count the number of players involved at any time from the present to the past.
I suspect that we will never see as much as 423 players inscribed in a tournament of CMSF in the spanish comunity, but with CMx1 we did!.
-
I used Spain because I had read the 20% unemployment number just before my post.
I live here, and i can say you the true...
If 20% of the spanish people where "really" unemployed, this country should be in some kind of civil war already.
The problem is that those numbers are the "official" data of workers who have a "known" work by the government, by the taxpayers.
There are many people working on something unknown to the government and not pay taxes and also collects money from the government for not having work for years.
The only truth is that black money (not declared to the government), which comes from undeclared work is growing a lot (activity encouraged a lot by the economical crisis).
Of course there are also many people that is really unemployed, but those numbers are way off.
-
What exactly is the coverage of this game?
(A) NATO forces in a civil war as the EU collapses as result of Greek and Spanish bankruptcy?
(
Cold war - what if scenarios?(3) Balkan wars of the 90s?
(D) NATO attacks Iceland to put an end to this ash issue?
Spain is far from be in bankrupcy... the 4th bigest bank in the world is spanish, and it's only an example.
-
Agreed. Don't know why they tried to reinvent the wheel, CMx1 interface was great.
I really miss the "enter" key you could press to bring up penetration values etc. too.
Absolutely YES!.
This is a feature that was perfect in CMx1, and it's just another CMSF design failure.
-
Cid:
I think you misunderstood my question.
I'm talking more like "you just emptied you're Garand at me and I'm dashing at you trying to brain you with my entrenching shovel".
That sort of thing.
Ok you mean head to head as "close quarters"
-
We definitely have to do a better job with H2H for WW2 than we did for Modern simply because the weapons of WW2 weren't all short automatic weapons like Modern. This does change the dynamic of H2H.
Steve
This means that we can expect to see historical squad level AI tactics for each nation?, for example, with:
Garands as the main firefight weapon for the US, & BAR as support weapon to allow the GI maneouvers...
While the germans trying to use their LMG as main firefight weapon of the whole squad at medium range being the rifles the "support" weapon under cover (providing all arround security), but avoiding firefight and exposure to enemy fire in medium or long ranges???.
-
Who died and made you official ambassador of the customers?
Common sense... It almost died.
-
It all sounds very nice, but a few new screenshots thrown in would have been very welcome as well.
What kind of request was that?.
Screenshots aren't of any value at all...
Gameplay features is all that counts for the customers interested in this kind of game...
Any player that buy this game "only" for the nice screenshots will not buy any other module or expansion in the future. A casual player excited by screenshots, will lose the interest if it isn't his style of gameplay.
If you love the gameplay features included in this release, the screenshots doesn't add nothing to the information provided in plain text.
-
historically correct TO&E?. Such thing doesn't exist!.
Specially withing the german army in a limited counter-attack role.
The force was built for the "task"... attaching and removing elements in a way that any resemblance to the original force is purely coincidental.
Is good to see that task-oriented forces (the real life reality of "historically correct TO&E") can be built in CM:Normandy more easily.
CM: Normandy it's getting back some of the old good CMx1 features slowly.
-
Is not June, why people is so impatient...
The more that it takes, the better... i expect to get at least the CMx1 functionality included into CMx2, and that can't be done fast for sure.
-
It may take longer than "two or three years" to get multiplayer teams into the game. Steve has mentioned in the past that they would like to get this feature into the game, but it will take a lot of work, even with the new CMx2 engine to get it implemented as desired.
The 'whole game playback' may never happen. It's possible that a solution may be found, but more than likely it may never reach the point of being worked on since there are so many other features that demand time that affect the playability of the game. Considering the size of PBEMs now, I could imagine that a full-game playback file may be over a gigabyte in size (and just get bigger as further changes happen to the game engine).
And?.
In 6 years you can get a broadband connection to internet of 100Gigabits/s straight to your home thanks to the new Cisco routers developed for the ISPs... the model CRS-3 of Cisco has a network output of 322 Terabits per second (or in other words 40 TeraBytes per second):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/09/cisco_crs_3_core_router/
And in 6 years you will buy a 250 Terabyte Hard Disk for 100$.
Or... consider the most probable technology path...
By that year, in fact, your PC will not need only a 100Gb/s network card to support the input bandwidth that internet will provide by that year, but also your PC will need a HBA (interface to connect to a SAN that "in short" allows you to connect to an array of remote hard disks with Fibre Channel), or maybe if you can't buy a dedicated HBA, you will do the same with your current network card using iSCSI that is already natively supported by Windows 7 or any flavour of GNU-Linux... with one technology or the other, the result will be the same, your PC will end with a remote attached hard disk bigger than a PetaByte provided by Google, and faster than your current Serial Ata by several orders of magnitude.
In my work we use SANs and HBAs as main Disk connection solution in all the blade servers since a lot of years... in only 3 years the technology will be cheap enought to become a standard in the home PCs. Back 5 years ago, a HBA was really expensive, but today is becoming cheaper and cheaper (you just can't imagine how much).
I also did some trials the last year with old operating systems like Windows XP, installing the poor's man solution to access to a SAN plenty of fast disks (with iSCSI)... just installing the Microsoft iSCSI Software Initiator for Windows XP (it hasn't native support) i got a D:\ hard disk inside of my laptop of 40Terabytes, way faster than the Local Solid State Disk... the bad news were that in the other end of the network cable those array of disks were installed inside of a SAN chasis, that is still very expensive for a "home user" today.
By 2020 to see a Home PC booting his main operating system from a local hard disk, will be more rare than a Today's gamming PC booting from an old fashioned flexible 3&1/4-inches floppy disk. Trust me...
So, what's the problem?.
P.S: Please... bookmark this post and bump it at year 2016, and i bet that you will be surprised by the accuracy of this content.
Cold war - what if scenarios?
December Normandy Bones
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
This post is only about graphics...
I will love a post of included "features".