Jump to content

monkeezgob

Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by monkeezgob

  1. already read it somewhere...

    AFAIK, there were no urban fightings in Africa at all, there were just defensive lines, like Mareth Line, or Tobruk defences.

    Btw, I'd like to see how will be the bunkers in Tow2.

    There was, urban warefare wasn't as commonplace as in the European theatre, for obvious reasons, but it wasn't absent.

  2. Hmmm, it would seem to be the case that the engine clearly can't accomodate representing complex urban engagemnets, hence the choice of time and theatre. This will severely limit what they're able to deal with in WWII if they're not able to overcome this. I'll pass on this one I think.

  3. I'm only playing a very small subset of BFCs games (namely DropTeam) and hope that this is an indication of how devoted the fans are.

    IMHO if you create an official repository you take away the reason for a fan to run his own site. That will create at least one disapointed customer. People have fun and take pride in spending time on their hobby. Take that participation away and you will only make them angry.

    And what is the advantage of making an official repository in first place? Moon, you tell us its not an economic reason. Ok, so there is the 'better service for customers' point. But where is the advantage for me as a customer of using your repository against using a privately driven one?

    Sure, you can (probably) make a more professional website but that costs you money which you don't make (as stated above). And community sites usually don't drive customers away - they attract more fans. And they are free.

    So I don't see the point at all.

    If you want to do the community a service then maintain a list and backup existing scenarios/mods so that if a fan site goes down the data is not lost.

    Have to say I agree with this. I don't see the point in this at all, other than as a money making exercise...which I'm quite sure it's not.

  4. I'd pretty much stop playing CMSF entirely if the community became a pay-in thing. Limiting a user to 5-10 mb unless he "pays up" for scenario and mod downloads would count in that respect. It's an obvious cash grab. The module system is enough of a turn off to me, if the sharing people do with mods and scenarios becomes part of your business model I sincerely hope that those people move elsewhere and trade on their own.

    Agree. No thanks.

  5. Well it looks pretty, but I've got some grave misigivings about the ability of this title to simulate urban combat. All the buildings depicted look like hovels, what about major engagements such as those fought at the town of Tobruk? I don't see any way this title could deal with that. I was very disappointed witht he way TOW simply overlooked this and it still looks like this follow up title is reluctant or unable to deal with the complexity of urban combat. I'll pass thanks.

  6. Having played both, I'd say you can't really compare the two.

    Theatre of war looks pretty, but (in my opinion) it is a real time stragey game, where the emphasis is on deploying your resources in a way that will beat the programmed puzzle in that scenario. It's also hampered by the lack of essential elemnets such as the deployment of smoke and the ability to enter buildings.

    CMSF is a wargame, where the use of sound strategy and tactics is required. Apples and Pears stuff. Like people have said, download the demo and see for yourself.

  7. Originally posted by pad152:

    Sorry, but for me Panzer Command isn't there yet! I don't like the 10 little indian infantry model.

    If the expansion doesn't expand the current Tow game, I think I'll just wait for Tow II.

    Each to his own, but infantry are far more effective, useful and responsive in PC than they ever were for me in TOW. "It's not there yet?" It's not as graphically pleasing as TOW, but that's the only way it's inferior to it. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusison, anyway have fun with TOW!
  8. Originally posted by pad152:

    If it's a separate game, will the existing TOW be updated to add the new features such as infantry in buildings?

    I doubt it. It sounds like the original title has been abandoned in favour of the African campaign. I was hugely disappointed with the original, so I'm going to pass.

    On a more general note I'd strongly recommend Panzer Command Kharkov. Not as pretty as TOW, but (in my opinion) far superior gameplay.

  9. Originally posted by dalem:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by slysniper:

    So Steve finially said it, he tried to please you all and in the end he seems to have tried to serve to many masters.

    That's crap. Steve tried to please no one except himself, and that's the way it's been ever since the pre-release days of CM:BO. His attitude has been, from Day One, "Hey you mooks, Charles and I decided to write a game that we wanted to play, and we think there are enough people with similar tastes that we're putting our time and money on the table to invite you along for the ride. Buy a ticket and come on!"

    And he was right. And it was a great ride.

    And now he's laying out the same invite, and anyone who wants to go along is invited to buy a ticket for a new ride.

    But it's not about pleasing too many people, not at all.

    -dale </font>

  10. Originally posted by Filip Van Wuytswinkel:

    I think that real time is not real at all! Especially when faced to a computer ennemy, the computer has the advantage because it can react faster.

    Wego makes the game more tactical.

    Not when the enemy AI is as poor as it is at the moment it doesn't. It makes it a cakewalk to beat without it becoming an insane click-fest, which it almost surely would considering the weapons ranges and pace of modern combat coimbined with a more competent AI.

    Real time in multi-player inevitably turns into a chaotic clik-fest. Where the ability to defeat an opponent depends more on your mouse and hotkey skills than any sense of tactical complexity.

    RT is ok for computer games, (yes, I've tried it)but personally I prefer my wargming to be more strategic and cerebral and not a crazy click-fest

  11. People don't post poor reviews to score points, they post poor reviews because the game's incomplete and unfinished. You can only review what you're given. Reviewers like games developers and publishers have deadlines. A review is all about a first impression. A games magazine doesn't care if your going to relesae a a dozen patches in the next 12 months to fix all the things that were highlighted in the review as a problem. What's the first impression? In the case of CM:SF it was very poor.

    Will it adversely effect sales? Of course. The more casual RT player/gamer, whatever, who BFC are trying to attract now isn't going to be attarcted to something that might be suitably patched a year after it was released. A reputation for excellence takes a long time build and a short time to lose.

×
×
  • Create New...