Jump to content

Childress

Members
  • Posts

    2,550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Childress

  1. Nor is the terrain under the trees distinguished in any way, as in previous titles. Have you tried setting up a tree line having pushed alt-t? Impossible, IMO. [ September 18, 2007, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
  2. Haven't fired up CMSF in a while, but I recall that infantry units are now programmed only to advance to the four sides of an enclosed area. There is no longer any intermediary position that, for example, permits setting ambushes from within a room as in CM1x. Could be mistaken about this, tho'. [ September 18, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
  3. No, but better, enough to stimulate me into reading the meaty and impressive, if ill-proofread, manual. At the rate they're going, I expect version circa 1.05 will hit the sweet spot.
  4. Yes, with 1.03 the game is approaching fun. Question: Are AFVs now reversing, popping smoke and/or displaying situational awareness when they're aware of being outgunned? Also, and this has gotten no attention, we need a terrain base colour for tree areas when using Alt-T. Or diaphanous trees as in Age of Empires, lol.
  5. 1- Show All Movement Plots command? 2- Alt-T removes trees but still doesn't reveal underlying terrain (as in CM1) rendering positioning problematical, if not impossible.
  6. Hmmm, you've got a point. But in Iraq we went in planning to occupy the country. (And I doubt we'll ever again attempt to MacArthurize a Muslim country) Maybe Battlefront is envisaging a get in, get out, 'rubble makes no trouble' scenario.
  7. Disagree. CMSF (which I've put aside for the time being) depicts an *invasion* of Syria. One has to imagine the gloves would be off. You're confusing this with the current occupation of Iraq where, to a large extent, US troops function as a constabulary force. Certain constraints are in order, though one can argue they should be less inhibiting then they are.
  8. No. I've put the game into cold storage. Yeah, it's got potential but the release was a good four months premature, IMO. Good luck, Battlefront!
  9. Really? In a Red vs Red scenario? I thinbk it's necessary. Also, more arty options. That said, does anyone miss the shadows and sounds from air support present in CM1?
  10. Giving Red some air support may be a fine idea for future patches.
  11. Does anyone miss the sounds and shadows from CM 1-3?
  12. Yes,, another bucket added to the flood of gripes but.... I've noticed next to impossible to control ones troops in the woods without pressing alt-t and removing them. But once the trees disappear there's no indication of the underlying terrain as in previous versions. So good luck with positioning. Microsoft, in their Age of Empires series, handled this in a cool fashion using diaphanous trees. We've regressed. Another oddity, lol: when two bldgs are joined together but share a roof troops will, instead of marching directly from one edge to another another, advance diagonally to the corner of roof#1 before completing their move, as if seeking an invisible entry. But the roof forms a whole, visually. This is kinda funny to watch.
  13. Don't understand why they didn't include surrendering in this version. In the older titles it was a bit of pain, granted, marching the POWs to the back of your front line. And they often had to be escorted by *several* precious friendlies due to the absence of 1:1 representation. But with the full squad depicted it would have been so easy (methinks) to simply abstract a single member out of the battle along with the surrendering troops.
  14. Then BFC should activate it for all units. Doesn't sound like a towering programming challenge.
  15. Maybe the Battlefront guys felt that RT was the future because they, being grogs, realized that WEGO is intrinsically unrealistic. Think about it: a 60 second turn is followed by a planning phase that, in PBEM, can consume several days. And this in a TACTICAL setting, where commanders are presumably called on to think on their feet. IMO, WEGO works more plausibly on the strategic level as in, say, AGEOD's pre-20th century games. There you don't get the gross asymmetry between planning and execution.
  16. It's truly impressive watching the Strikers and Abrams rocking and rolling over the terrain undulations with the realistic suspension animations. Just wish I could see what they're getting into without descending to level 1.
  17. Agreed. My personal preferences would have been: 1- Drop the WEGO all together and devote all resources to developing and refining RT. 2- Drop the RT and devote all resources to expanding and refining the existing WEGO format. The problem is, they tried to do both. And whinging forum members are, to great extent, the culprits.
  18. This belongs near the top of the patch list, IMO. Game is nearly unplayable without it.
  19. I respectfully disagree. Not when one side (Americans) has total air superiority, choppers and flying drones. One suspects, OTOH, that Iraqi, oops I mean Syrian, intel is considerably less comprehensive.
  20. If only you guys could go back in time and, with firm resolution, turn deaf ears to the 'include PBEM/WEGO' crowd. So much time wasted bolting a trailer winch to a (potential) Lamborghini that could have been spent polishing and bug squashing. CMSF would have been released in a much more refined state.
  21. Or Paradox pressured them to push it out the door?
  22. Do you mean we're....beta testers? :eek: If so, we're in 0.7. I have to admit the animations are super cool.
  23. 'A' Patch? If so, it better be the beefiest patch in BFC history. Sorry to say, but I coming to the conclusion that this game should have been released in 2008.
×
×
  • Create New...