Childress
-
Posts
2,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Childress
-
-
I QUICK move the pixeltroopers virtually all the time. As pointed out by Mikey this mode seems amazingly fatigue resistant. MOVE doesn't get much use- what's the point? FAST? Maybe for dashing across a hotly contested street from one building to another.
-
Fast is now *slightly* more rapid than Quick. But there's still not enough payoff, IMO, to using Fast except on the rarest of occasions. I think these commands need more differentiation.
-
Seems like a lot of work to yield one and a half scenarios.
-
You can't. Most of the time it doesn't matter. But it would be cool, in my opinion, if the game allowed units to occupy the middle of a room- to set an ambush, or avoid exposed balconies.
-
Nice looking map. You did something every scenario maker should consider: putting distinguishing terrain under the trees.
-
Now, in real life gunners momentarily let up on their outgoing fire when someone friendly crosses into their LOF. So reality says that although the game should have some negative effect for this, I do think in real life it's less than people may think. Which is why we're not even considering putting in the code to deal with this.
Steve
Probably an ignorant question, but could the TacAI disable fire, or at least targeting, when friendlies and (spotted) bad guys occupy the same tile?
-
Michael Emrys,
As important as simulating friendly fire is, it isn't important enough to derail development. People have been coping with lack of small arms friendly fire for four CM releases
At any rate, it matters less in your typical WW2 setting than in a modern urban environment with modern weapons, right?
-
But since grazing fire was not accurately modeled in CMx1, there were many occasions when friendly troops should have been in danger but never were. It'll be interesting to see if that situation changes. Michael
I was thinking of this:
-
Looking forward to Bridges and QB system. But got caught by CMSF as well now.
.CM1 exercised a compulsive fascination for me that CMSF hasn't, probably because of the asymmetric aspect and the undernourished QB component. Nor have I been inspired to do a PBEM. But they'll be addressed and it's hard to go back go back because of the other cool enhancements and sheer graphical bravura and detailing of the new system. Also, I gather, we'll get surrendering troops which somewhat detracts from the flavour and realism of CMSF, IMO: the pacing of battles seems to fast without POW processing.
Personally, I wish BFC would devise some work around for the lack of friendly fire effect the abuse of which I noticed in one of tyrspawn's excellent videos. But I'm not unaware of the AI programming challenges involved.
-
CMSF streets are more or less free of destroyed/parked/abandoned cars and trucks which normally provide cover in street fights, one supposes.
-
but on balance I'd prefer to tell the computer roughly what force I wanted than to tell it precisely
Now that's more like it! Cherry picking with more realism and less tedium.
-
A vote here for cherry picking. As someone who played dozens and dozens of CMx1 games pbem, I can attest that the long term effect of cherry picking reduces the game to a stupefying sameness, where applied cost/benefit analysis produces an ever dwindling and repetitive selection of 'viable' units. Can you say 'Stugs' (CMBB)? Personally, I hated it. On the other hand, one feels that the demand for this feature from is so insistent on the forum that Battlefront should give in and give the squeaky wheels what they want. :wink:
-
Next module will be the German/Canadian/Dutch module (usually refered to as the NATO module). That's the last that's been annouced, but with sales of the British Module going so well, maybe we can talk them into a French/Spanish/Italian module.
Is anyone aware that, at least in Iraq, the Germans are prohibited from firing shot in anger? Frankly, the concept of NATO, as an organization, participating in any non-constabulary role strains one's credulity.
-
But spotting dust plumes was part of the game in N. Africa, for expample. They should be visible, under certain conditions, without spotting the unit(s). I gather the problem in the CM series is that the player can pinpoint them with overly accurate precision due to cpu/gpu limitations.
-
In the list of 1.20 additions and fixes there's this entry:
Fog of War
* Muzzle flame, smoke and dust from enemy weapons, dust and exhaust from enemy vehicles, and shell casings are displayed only if the enemy unit is currently spotted by at least one of your soldiers.
Does this mean that unseen vehicles in the distance will no longer advertise their advance in dry terrain? If so, this seems to undo one of the realistic (IMO) innovations in CMAK.
-
Are you sure? As I posted earlier (ahem), Deliberate Friendly Fire- the game already has inadvertent FF- was a minor issue in the earlier titles. It's become a significant limitation in the modern, urban setting, opening up a can of exploits. Can you say Magic Bullets?"is it really that important?" The answer should be "no".So please fix it.
-
There are some scenarios I've tried where I've just pushed the pieces forward and won decisive victories. Others, can't solve the puzzle and get plastered. The challenge is there with the right battle which, for me is, vs the AI, since the game hasn't grown on me enough -yet-to contact someone for a PBEM which was the only mode in which I played CM1. But it's getting there.
Winning in CMSF may require an anal-retentive mentality. Acute attention to unit placement is a must due to the violent and precise weapons environment. You have to depend on your guys, the TacAI, doing reasonable things. So the future success of CM2 depends, imo, on further refinements to squad behavior.
-
I am serious and don't call me Shirley, either.Originally posted by Fat Dave:Childress,
Hard to tell if you are being serious or not
but do you think that veteran soldiers, armed to the teeth, and in relatively good fighting positions would simply throw down their weapons and throw up their arms in the face of an enemy AV?
And, yes, I believe average quality Arab troops would throw in the towel (no pun intended) in a scenario like this. They've been known to surrender to army nurses. Especially since BFC trenches are less than formidable and appear to simulate the 'hasty' type. Which, when you think about, may not be implausible given a rapidly moving front.Not to beat a dead horse- it's not going to happen for a while- but CM2 really needs POWs.
[ May 27, 2008, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
-
I'm telling ya, this is a classic Surrender situation.
-
Is it, really? In a real battle the Syrians would have surrendered long before the trigger stage. So, given that surrender isn't an option, currently...Originally posted by JasonC:Brad drives 10 feet away from a whole platoon in prepared cover, only needs to hold the trigger down for 3 minutes to kill them all, is tactical nonsense.
-
Ixnay on Crusade. The Muslims will take offense.Originally posted by Speedy:How about CM: Great Crusade or CM: Crusade in Europe?
They have the added benefit of pissing off lots of pc people by using the 'C' word.
How about: CM: Eisenhower's (Blessed be his memory) Mighty Jihad?
-
Don't get discouraged. Sooner or later the market will assert itself. Slotting fees, 'vendor alowances'- and their equivalents in the gaming industry- skew wholesale purchasing decisions because those purchases are driven by bribes, not by consumer demand for the products. They distort the information flow like top down socialism. In retail grocery, the Big 3 (Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons) are addicted to them like crack. And they're carrying heavy debt loads.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:So the more mass market the industry has become, the more us "deep games" have been pushed out. We're almost irrelevant from the industry's perspective.
Steve
But WalMart and Whole Foods have eschewed them and flourished.
It's curious that we're seeing increased consolidation in certain sectors and, at the same time, the number of people self-classifying as self-employed has never been higher.
-
The effect of slotting,'free fills', and the like is to deter small, innovative companies from gaining a foothold in the marketplace and to concentrate power in the hands of established producers who can afford to pony up the bribes. This has been going on for the past 15 years or so, encouraged by market consolidation in retail among 'The Big 3', and continues to flourish in the absence of media curiosity. You may have noticed the shrinking variety and higher prices, during this period. Size, it seems, begets corruption whether it's the corporate or statist kind.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:But it is generally skirting anti-racketeering laws IMHO. It definitely drives up costs, though the consumers are tricked into thinking it doesn't. Fortunately, we have more flexibility in that we can say "no" and still survive.
Unfortunately, the internet isn't much help here. For the moment.
-
Lol, if people knew what goes behind the closed doors of their local megamarket they'd be at the gates with flaming pitchforks. This applies only to the major chains and it's basically legal (so far) graft. Pimping, as Steve called it, is a good description. There were hearings on Slotting Fees in Congress a few years ago. They got nowhere. Most vendors were afraid to testify because of retaliation. A few appeared before the committee in black hoods, their voices electronically altered. The major dailies didn't deign to cover the hearings.Originally posted by Dirtweasle:Yea, I have a sort of second-hand acquaintance with some folks that tried getting a product into grocery stores... geesh what a racket.
Funny thing with so many politicians moaning about the plight of the 'poor'. Eliminating these fees, which raise food costs, would be a giant step in that direction. Not to mention the biofuels scam. But they fear to offend that powers that be, or their contributors. Also, the chains reportedly derive most of their net profit from 'em.
.
1.21 Fast and Quick moves
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Funny thing is, one suspects MOVE is the most common mode of locomotion in real battles especially in a desert environment. But I haven't detected any advantages in using it in CMSF. One grasped the pros and cons of the movement commands in CM1 because they were clearly delineated- if memory serves.