Childress
-
Posts
2,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Childress
-
-
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'.Originally posted by Rocky Balboa:I noticed that a squad always use the balcony when occupying a building floor that includes said balcony. Does the game provide more or less protection when using a balcony as opposed to being deployed within the building?
[ September 18, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.Originally posted by Bradley Dick:Childress,
That's not true at all. Even in a major invasion, the gloves are never off for US forces. Even at the beginning of the war in 2003, targeting of civillian infrastructure and especially Mosques was prohibited. There really had to be a reason for you to blow up a hospital. Try to get a copy of the ROE from CENTCOM if you can, it will tell you all about it.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Really? In a Red vs Red scenario? I thinbk it's necessary. Also, more arty options.Childress it won't happen, cause it's not realistic in anyway. BF allready said this. We all know that in any conflict of this kind the first thing that wouldbe totally whiped out would be the enemy air force. [/QB]
That said, does anyone miss the shadows and sounds from air support present in CM1?
-
Giving Red some air support may be a fine idea for future patches.
-
Does anyone miss the sounds and shadows from CM 1-3?
-
-
Er, how can you tell?Originally posted by Krinks:I lost a man to a ricochet (not friendly fire). They were in an alley, being fired on by a Syrian squad. A tracer bounced off the wall, and struck one of the guys, taking him out.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Then BFC should activate it for all units. Doesn't sound like a towering programming challenge.Unless it doesn't have a weapon, in which case, no targeting. [/QB] -
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.
-
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.
-
Agreed.Originally posted by track:Not just to CMAK level. Think what kinda of graphics overhaul they could have done in the remaining three years if they would have just kept the game basic structure and mechanics the same.
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.
-
This belongs near the top of the patch list, IMO. Game is nearly unplayable without it.
-
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.Originally posted by MikeyD:I rather suspect its not really all that easy to spot a well prepared slit trench in hilly terrain from 400m+.
-
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We have a multi-page thread complaining about the file size of PBEM turns. Yet we were told, by the PBEM fans, to include it no matter how big the file size was. That was the product of one of the most long, drawn out, emotional, vicious, ridiculous events on this Forum in its nearly 10 year history.
-
Or Paradox pressured them to push it out the door?Originally posted by Achim:The "Beta"-Testers must be blind or were ignored by the developers.
-
Do you mean we're....beta testers? :eek: If so, we're in 0.7. I have to admit the animations are super cool.
-
'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.
Will vehicles stricly follow a plotted waypoint one of these days?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
[ September 18, 2007, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]