The Limey
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by The Limey
-
-
Surely that depends upon the victory conditions? The options in CMSF should allow sufficient flexibility to allow for imbalances. A good scenario design should present a realistic AND balanced scenario without having to deprive the US forces of what they realistically have. Right?Originally posted by B00M$LANG:If you want to get down to it, giving every scenario tons of IF and Air support negates any semblance of parity and balance in a scenario.
-
(First, I should point out that I have not yet tried the game with the 1.03 patch. Second, I should say that I don't mean this to be an RT vs. WEGO diatribe.)
With the various AI and pathfinding issues that existed in the 1.01 release of the game, I started playing RT because, to be honest, that seemed the only way to play the game without extreme frustration. I'd initially felt a reluctance to do it and I missed the playback feature in RT, but overall I liked playing it.
That said, unless you don't use the pause button, RT makes things too easy on the player. IMO, the joy of playing WEGO is that you have to set the situation up with unit positioning, moves, and timing to your best advantage and then relinquish control, sit back and watch to see whether you did it right. Basically, after you had issued the general orders, you left it to the TacAI to carry them out - I know it wasn't totally realistic but it seemed more realistic to me.
In RT, you don't have to do that - you get to pause the game and correct your flawed orders on the fly. I still enjoy playing the game that way but, to me at least, it feels in some way that I'm "cheating." The obvious answer is for me not to use pause but I'm not sure that's a realistic option for me either.
So to conclude, it's not that I don't like RT, it's just that I'd prefer not to use it but currently feel I have to. Here's hoping that 1.03 will let me back into WEGO.
p.s. I also read some posts that suggested a shorter interval for WEGO (like 20 or 30 seconds). I think that was a great idea.
-
I'll just echo the positive reviews (though several of the suggested improvements sound pretty good too). The added flexibility of the interface is great. The first time I watched a salvo of airbursts exploding above (and decimating) an enemy trenchline my jaw dropped.
-
I agree with you. I didn't mean to knock COH. I was just trying to say that no one should expect the two to be comparable with regard to content and game type.Originally posted by PSY:Anyway enjoying one does not preclude enjoying the other.
-
Company of Heroes. A WWII RTS game that doesn't hold a candle to CMx1 (unless you prefer RTS games, that is).Originally posted by Cornelius Quilty:Whats COH?
-
But I added a cunning and startlingly original spin to it by adding "The" to the front.Originally posted by carlR:Hey you nicked my old user name which used to be 'Limey'!!
-
I'll "fourth" what's been said (though we're definitely not the first people to provide positive feedback).
I've played several of the single missions and I'm currently on the second campaign mission, and I can safely say that I'm hooked already. I can certainly see some of the gameplay issues but it's not stopped me from really enjoying the game. The infantry animations (pathfinding issues aside) are great and the artillery interface blew me away (bad pun possibly intended). Seeing my line barrage of airbursts completely decimate an enemy trenchline was scarily cool.
I have every confidence that things will only improve from here, which is a pretty exciting prospect...
-
Wasn't this an issue with CMx1 as well?
The bottom line is that you have to be careful when assigning specific targets to any unit because they tend to get "tunnel vision" and fire at it regardless of other threats.
I guess the ideal situation would be to have two units - one suppressing with area fire and the other in overwatch with a cover arc. Of course, you don't always have two units to spare...
It's true that the TacAI seems to need some tweaking for threat assessment (and I'm confident that, given time, it'll get it).
-
If it had been merely an updated version of CM:AK, it wouldn't be wrong to expect that at all. But it isn't. As it is, what we've got is a new engine that has a LOT more potential than the old game and, given time, every possibility of becoming just as polished.Originally posted by Dirtweasle:You may be righ Louch and others.
Is it wrong to expect a follow on product to be at least as polished as the previous product, especially when they share the same name?
Yes, anyone following the development knew it was going to be a whole new game, a new game engine, graphics, even concepts, but yet is it unfair to think it would at least start where the previous left off instead of like a brand new thing?
My thinking was the new product should at least be as well done as the last version of the old.
Perhaps it's a glass half-full, glass half-empty kind of thing?
-
I've noticed this too and I feel the same way.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):I believe that it gets cancelled for probable enemy as well. I have had several units stop when the only thing visible are red diamonds with question marks in them.
I am not a big fan of the current version of the Hunt command.
Without wanted to sound nostalgic (I do like the new game thus far), the old Hunt command worked better. This new command is particularly frustrating using WEGO as, if your unit spots another but then loses LOS(or engages and destroys it), it will just stop and sit there until the end of the turn. In the previous game, after resolving an engagement or losing LOS, the unit would continue on the ordered "Hunting" route.
All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted