Jump to content

Childress

Members
  • Posts

    2,550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Childress

  1. Agree, Jason. As posted before, infantry in CMSF need to acquire skeddadling skills. The "Deer in the headlights" phenomenon seems to occur too frequently. And some may find the odd panicking grunt excised from the team, the current work around, as unsatisfyingly abstract. When CMBB first came out there were loud whinges on the forum that squads were too brittle; they broke too easily. (I was one of them, lol)This was tweaked in patches but CMAK got it just right, in my opinion. BFC was, in retrospect, correct to go in this direction.
  2. Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
  3. Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
  4. Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
  5. True, true. The forum has cooled to room temperature. But, IMO, perhaps beating a dead horse: Fluff= cuss words, mooning, etc. Chrome= patches, aircraft effects and, yes, visual damage. CMSF already supplies heaps of chrome. Flavor= refinements to infantry, cover arcs and such. Auto-reversing vehicles, added in 1.07, being a fine example. Now that the game is stable, more Flavor, please. [ March 14, 2008, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Childress ]
  6. More chrome (sigh). Has Steve gone over to the Dark Side?
  7. 'Mooning' has an ancient pedigree, as well. According Josephus, a Legionary unleashed the Roman/Jewish war of the 1st century by exposing his arse from the parapet of the Temple during high holy days. His mates were much amused. BFC?
  8. Well, if it doesn't it's one of those minor, sweating-the details things that BF can address in the next update.
  9. I'm no grog but, for recon, I think you're meant to dismount the crew before arriving in a dicey zone.
  10. Another O/T question: do squads suffer an accrued speed or fatigue penalty when loading up on- acquiring- extra equipment?
  11. A bit O/T, but I wish there was a hot key that turned off the VL colours. The map would gain in visual appeal. (Of course, this may already exist, AFAIK, lol)
  12. That wasn't a dig, Kwazy. The sheer variety of stuff in the game impresses me. Not as copious as CMBB certainly, but very impressively rendered and animated. Congrats.
  13. MORE content? CMSF provides 6 different flavours of Strykers, for chrissakes.
  14. Yes, but only (apparently) as a seismic retrofit. But it's not just surrendering. Squads sometimes seem oblivious to fire and don't rout in a satisfactory way- they probably should break up into teams. And I loved the way they buggered off the map in CM1. [ March 09, 2008, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
  15. Well...Maybe I was being obscure, but I consider chrome=mere decor (on map choppers, e.g.) and flavor=personality, i.e. providing a reasonable simulacrum of human behaviour; troops acting in a convincing, varied and realistic manner. CM1 had a bit more personality than CMSF in its current state, IMO. Dorosh, I'm on board with the essential of your point that the game leaves one with an impression of sterility and that the cause lies with the stripped down modelling of infantry. The eye-glazing detachment I sometimes feel after a short time investment is not going to be cured by the inclusion of T-90s and BMP-3s. But you're dreaming if you think we're going to get grappling hooks, window entry, prisoner interrogation, and swimming a la Squad Leader. And do we need more hot keys? But at least we've progressed to debating 'sterility' and infantry functions. A few months ago, the hot topics on the forum dealt with CTDs, hardware incompatibilities and other dire issues. So we're moving forward. [ March 09, 2008, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
  16. Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?
  17. Exactly. That's useless chrome. Though some aircraft effects would be welcome. My personal preferences for future developments are, in order: 1- Squashing the few remaining bugs; pathfinding, movement order quirks (e.g., apparently Quick=Fast-fatigue), WEGO issues, etc. 2- Adding more functionality and flavor to infantry ops. 3- Addressing the quickbattle morass. 4- Adding environmental effects like fire, arty smoke and such. ...99-Inlcuding more nifty vehicles and troop types.
  18. Maybe because, given the relative scarcity of grass in the theatre depicted, it's not worth devoting resources to the extra coding required?
  19. This worked because the unit was on a downward slope looking down, with a clean LOS despite being prone? How about enabling ambushing troops to Hide- but not quite so well? For example, in a trench.
  20. Agree with Dorosh. Personally, I find the variety of troops and vehicles more or less adequate. Are people really hankering to play with British kit? I prefer that Battlefront concentrate on 'd' for future updates and modules.
  21. One hands in the air animation needed, a la CM1. Then a guard can be assigned from the squad. After an appropriate delay, guard and POWs are removed from the battle and entered into the post-game stat column. Voila
  22. Lol. Kvetching is just in the nature of sim forums. This one is neither better nor worse than the rest. Check out some of the flight or auto racing fora. Surrendering is not just fluff. Including hovering Apaches is fluff. Processing POWs exerts a drag on combat operations. I'd even settle for some abstractions in this domain. </font>
×
×
  • Create New...