Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

bartleby

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by bartleby

    What a difference about 2 years makes

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by sandy:

    Move to RT a serious design flaw for serious wargamers (done for understandable marketing purposes).

    Is that necessarily so? WeGo does let you maximize your planning and study the situation in depth, but is that something that "serious wargamers" must have? I like real time because it forces me to economize my attention and treats thought as a scarcity. The UI needs some work to be up to that, sure, but that can be fixed. It's not a worse style of wargaming, just different.
    0

    Poor quality armour crews too effective, imho

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by nijis:

    To a degree, but there's also poor marksmanship, minimal situational awareness, and other issues that come of putting raw troops into a complicated, noisy machine with limited visibility and pushing them into a highly stressful situation with virtually no meaningful training.

    Yeah, I didn't mean to ignore those, I just haven't done much from the Syrian side so I can't say. Conscripts shouldn't be that effective period, but a player can at least attempt some maneuver instead of "realistically" being shot in place.
    0

    Did piracy kill the commercial viability of CMx1?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

    Interesting discussion, but now I'm clueless about the BFC strategy.

    So if I've undestood correctly BFC, CMx1 had a very small history TBS grog customer base, insufficient to support the company. So what's the move ? Going to non-historical, yet realistic/detailed, RT.

    So the old customer base is mostly disappointed - I'm in that case and am really not alone...

    And now where's the new customer base ? Apart from US military buffs it looks even smallish !

    No way the RTS crowd will ever been hooked by a game so sophisticated, where for a non-specialist it looks like there's 3 units : Infantry, APC and tank.

    Plus the graphics, even if way better than CMX1, are still worse than the current standards. The models are close, but the terrain is really subpar.

    Recently there's been a steady trend of WW2 themed RTS, from Blitzkrieg to CoH. These had good success because they mixed the historical "romance" and the RTS standards. What does CM:SF ? None of both sides.

    Sadly I really think that forgetting its faithful customer base and go running after some fantasy "mass market" where BFC is unable to compete will end in failure.

    Most of the discussion here is going to be hypothetical or anecdotal, simply because we lack the marketing information. That said, I think you look too coldly on "the RTS crowd." RTSs are plenty complex; if anything, CM:SF simplifies by eliminating base management or economics. Most gamers aren't stupid and are surprisingly open to new things. I don't think any specific design decision in CM:SF would outright make it untenable for mass success. It comes down to marketing at that point, and I won't comment on that since I don't know about it.

    On the other hand, BFC did manage to avoid some things that could have - namely infantry abstraction and a total lack of real time. As an experiment, try to think of the last major hex-based title that was a mainstream success. It was probably something like Panzer General, and that was about a decade ago. I don't think games like Civilization or Axis & Allies count because they're not trying to be tactical simulators. What kinds of games have taken their place? Well, ironically, games like CMx1 are a decent guess. Hex-based games are dead. There is an increasing expectation of at least the form of realism, and BFC have to respond to that reality. Dorosh made some excellent points in his design thread that I agree with about designing for effect, but I that's a different subject. While gamers aren't stupid, as a group we often look at forms instead of content (see what I said about anecdotal?). Even if 1 to 1 leads to less realistic outcomes at times, the alternative is seen as worse.

    While I wish WeGo was an option for multiplayer, I must admit to loving real time. One of the things I'm most interested in is time in battle and from turn-based to WeGo to real time was a natural progression. It's a totally different experience from CMx1.

    Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

    Yeah, I don't understand the move to RT. I assume they must be expecting to pick up a lot of customers who would not look at a turn-based game, but from all the comments CMSF is apparently not easily accessable even for CM vets. CM is too hardcore to ever be more than a niche product.

    Nah, I think most of the grumbling is a synergistic effect from being skeptical about modern war and annoyed about bugs. If the pathing and TacAI were better, this place would be a lot quieter. I can't see people having conniptions if the only problem was the lack of WeGo in multiplayer.
    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I don't know why some people feel the need to express their disappointment so loudly and aggressively. Seems sort of perverse to me. I think it would be nice if everyone tried to ask himself what he hoped to accomplish before pressing post.

    It's not the end of the world, the game will be patched and almost every issue will be sorted out. If the only thing people had to complain about was the lack of old-style WeGo, nobody would be telling BFC to do some "soul-searching" or telling them how to run their business (a strangely presumptuous suggestion, as it is). It's a natural reaction after a long anticipation, sure, but it's an overreaction. I hope everyone can keep some class.

    Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

    But the point is that reviewers don't review potential. Will BFC fix it? Probably given their track record. Do reviewers care? Nope. Is the review unfair? Nope.

    Then the question becomes "is reviewing unfair" instead of "is [this] review unfair" - and I think the answer is yes. Especially with games, where patching is so expected and easy. What would it mean for film criticism if new cuts were released every few weeks? Reviewing once and forgetting about is a negative influence on gaming, in my opinion. It supports the graphical planned obsolescence that's currently turning most games into engine demos. It's also a strange throwback to print media considering how much game reviewing is done on the internet.

    [ August 12, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: bartleby ]

    0

    My Two Cents

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by pad152:

    Why does BFC need a contract to model IDF forces?

    What the make up of a IDF tank company and/or use or display of IDF is now a patent or copy right issue?

    I think the issue is that BFC have stated that they would not do an IDF module without a very good reason. Israel giving them a nice contract to do so would be such a reason. I can certainly understand why they feel that way. As much as I would love to see the IDF in CMSF, anything with Israel has the potential to become politicized, and throw in a conflict with Syria and the internet and you get some problems.
    0

    Is it me or is there no water in CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sequoia:

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

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

    The next release will be the Marines and will depict an amphibious assault, so it will most likely include water.

    Hmm, will depict an amphibious assault? I certainly can't claim to have researched all of Steve's posts, but has there ever been anything more definite than:

    We have no definite plans for follow up Modules, but it is highly likely that one of them will simulate US Marines. Personally I would like to see British, German, or other NATO forces simulated as well, but we'll just have to see how things work out.
    </font>
    0

    Bring it down (seriously)!

    in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum

    Posted

    Originally posted by SlapHappy:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rogue187:

    I was thinking about this same thing as I have been developing my tactics for the game. Its funny that in modren warfare, we try to minimize "collateral damage" to towns. But when strandard infantry can fire missles/rockets can can KO/Immobilize/KIA or otherwise harm the tank and everything inside it, I find myself less willing to trade tit-for-tat fire. Instead I trun to my M1/MSG/Artillary to just level any building that has any inf inside it.

    Who can blame you? Fifty-Cal fire seems like a ping-pong ball launcher when used against buildings. Also, I rarely get kills with small arms fire. The Stryker .50's can get kills against completely exposed infantry as long as you set it to "auto-hose" and go have dinner. After you get back, there is at least a good chance it might have wiped out the enemy squad....... </font>
    0

    Routing does exist! I saw it finally! (Classified UAV photos included)

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by track:

    At least considering Syrian poor quality troops routing would be a major problem for officers to overcome once U.S. troops open up with all they got.

    Against Israel, Syrian forces haven't often routed tactically.

    Which is to suggest that the behaviour might be as modeled instead of a problem. But that is up to BFC to clarify I suppose.

    [ August 04, 2007, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: bartleby ]

    0

    My Second try at a battle

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Deathsai:

    And I don't really want to fight the Japanese in WWII, I want to fight the Syrians in 2008. That means an actually fluid system, not a bunch of men that NEVER leave their position unless ordered to, even when under crippling fire, men who never retreat and never surrender, they might cower or be pinned but by Allah they'll never respond as an actual human would in the last few milleniums of human warfare.

    :(

    Oddly enough, that's a fairly accurate depiction of the way Syrian infantry have fought in the past few decades. Not that this makes up for some AI problems, but I found it interesting smile.gif
    0

    Shock Force suggestions thread

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Oh, one more thing I thought of: K is used for a couple important things, but if you accidentally select "bail out" and then cancel the order, the crew will still dismount. This is really a pain if you're under small arms fire, say, and the crew jumps out of their nice steel box into it. Hopefully this can be altered.

    0

    Shock Force suggestions thread

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

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

    --Actually, now that I think of it, have you considered an option to use the numpad to issue commands? The 3x3 layout is perfect for it and with a little practice it could be quite fast. Just a thought.

    Have you tried it? ;) You can issue commands with the numpad and cycle through the command panels with '/' and '*' (not sure if the cycling is default, if not you can remap those hotkeys from 't' and 'y'). That's how I play and prefer it to fumbling for hotkeys on the keyboard. </font>
    0

    Shock Force suggestions thread

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    After a bit of play I thought of a couple tweaks that might help playability. I'm having a blast so far, but these would help even more.

    --Changing the "tab" behaviour to a lower height or angle so that the selected unit is initially visible. Currently I have to pan down and it can be a little confusing.

    --Adding a key to toggle between formations and another to toggle within them. This would be a real time-saver in real-time mode to quickly see the disposition of your units and issue orders.

    --Tweaking pathfinding for MOUT. Currently it can be hard to tell which door your soldiers will enter. If there was some way to either show what side they were headed for or select more explicitly their entry point it would help.

    --I would rethink the way hotkeys work now. Instead of having certain keys repeated depending on which control panel you have open, I would (at least for the important ones like target and movement) have them independent and usable at any time. It also might be useful to have four set keys corresponding between the four tabs instead of toggling through them.

    --Actually, now that I think of it, have you considered an option to use the numpad to issue commands? The 3x3 layout is perfect for it and with a little practice it could be quite fast. Just a thought.

    --A mouselook option for camera control. I know it's been mentioned, but it would be huge.

    --LOD control. Another one that's been said, but it should be scalable.

    0

    QB Strangeness

    in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support

    Posted

    I generated a quick battle in the hills. It started out fine, I placed my troops and gave them orders. Then I hit go and noticed something strange...they started taking fire at once FROM BEHIND! Apparently the computer had the same setup area as I did! While I didn't accomplish my mission, I can report with some certainty that a Stryker platoon is vulnerable to T-72 fire from the rear. Anyway. I can't really remember the other settings, but it was a real-time game, if that helps.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...