Childress
-
Posts
2,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Childress
-
-
Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
-
Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
-
Modest wish: replacing the micro type in the briefings with a larger font. Also, a key for deleting scenarios.
-
True, true. The forum has cooled to room temperature.Originally posted by gibsonm:Yes I think people are calming down a bit (but of course not fully content).
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 ]
-
More chrome (sigh). Has Steve gone over to the Dark Side?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Putting a different unit patch on the upper arm in the exact place we've allowed for it to go... that's the sort of thing we can do.
Steve
-
'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?
-
Well, if it doesn't it's one of those minor, sweating-the details things that BF can address in the next update.
-
I'm no grog but, for recon, I think you're meant to dismount the crew before arriving in a dicey zone.Originally posted by c3k:I mean, sure, I'm able to drive them ahead of my guys and see who blows them up but I don't think that is how they're meant to be used.
-
Yes, I think so. </font>Originally posted by Other Means:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Childress:
Another O/T question: do squads suffer an accrued speed or fatigue penalty when loading up on- acquiring- extra equipment?
-
Another O/T question: do squads suffer an accrued speed or fatigue penalty when loading up on- acquiring- extra equipment?
-
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)Originally posted by MarkEzra:Good! and just what part of Occupy didn't you understand?...
Also keep in mind The blue player victory locations are only the three in town or main road while Red has four to hold. -
You may have been looking at pix of western Syria.Originally posted by Omenowl:I have looked at some of the pictures in syria and they have some different looking vegetation than what is present in CMSF.
-
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.Originally posted by KwazyDog:Actually there are 9 variants of Stryker in game so if you are going to take a dig at least get it right. In total there are over 50 variants of vehicle available to the player in CMSF, not including command versions, many of which I doubt most people knew existed until they saw them in game.[/QB]
-
MORE content? CMSF provides 6 different flavours of Strykers, for chrissakes.
-
Yes, but only (apparently) as a seismic retrofit.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:I would like to know if prisoners will ever make it into CM:SF? [/QB]
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 ]
-
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.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Seriously, what's the difference between "chrome" and "flavor"???? :confused:
I mean we obviously agree, it just seemed contradictory to dismiss chrome in one sentence and call for flavor in the next...
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 ]
-
Lol, I'm agreeing with Dorosh and he's dissing me... Moderators?
-
Exactly. That's useless chrome. Though some aircraft effects would be welcome.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat.
Peter. [/QB]
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.
-
Maybe because, given the relative scarcity of grass in the theatre depicted, it's not worth devoting resources to the extra coding required?Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:If they could code burning grass in CMBO 8 years ago, why not now? [/QB]
-
Er, 1.07 has been out for a while, mate.Originally posted by thewood:I have not tried it with an ATGM team since 1.05.
PS. the Syrian squad was veteran and I am playing WEGO. I haven't tried this in 1.07.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. VoilaOriginally posted by Big Poppa Pump:I agree surrendering is not just fluff. It can be abstracted if needed.
-
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.Originally posted by Childress:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Code13:
[QB] Very true MickeyD, it would then be onto the next perceived flaw that made the whole game unplayable...
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>People surrendering might be cool, but I am not that bothered.
CMx1 vs CMx2 tests
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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.