Jump to content

kulik

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kulik

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/16/1984

Converted

  • Location
    SR
  • Occupation
    student

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Online WEGO and/or realtime with replay feature. Operations. Tac-AI that uses suppressing fire on targets without direct LOS based on what's going on around them. Example: Everybody is shooting at the copse up there, I might as well, or, walking through forest, my buddy up front gets shot, I start shooting into the forest up front.
  2. Lots of over thinking in this thread IMHO. Having your assault team wiped out due to them assaulting with almost empty mags is annoying and happened to me on numerous occasions. I don't need battlefront write complex logic for the AI to identify ideal reload times, I wouldn't mind sort of approximation like if the guys have been idling for a round or two, consider their guns reloaded and just pop a reloading animation that could be interrupted if they need to fire. I could live with that.
  3. My gripe is the unflinching nerve of TC and half track gunners when under fire. Unbutton should mean keep spotting and firing the MG if possible, but, same as with the infantry, if there is a hail of bullet flying your way take cover in the cupola. Suppressed is better than dead.
  4. If you think there is an underlying problem, recalculate and run the turn 50 times in a row and make a statistic of the results. Otherwise BF and their henchmen beta testers will come with dozens of plausible explanations why things unfolded like they unfolded. Remember that couple updates ago a mg-42 couldn't hold off a squad of infantrymen without cover charging that particular mg. But in this case, I'd say the result is plausible.
  5. Steve, thank you for your reply. I'm not going to quote you, just some notes I jotted reading through your reply: 1. This isn't about Wiggum, although on the first page of this thread, some people are derogatory to Wiggum, before he got into the tantrum, the OP and his first replies are quite civil. It just struck me as mean. This is about some people in this thread that show attitude that, since CMBF has no new features, they didn't wanted any new features in the new game to begin with. This strikes me as hypocritical because as you've said everyone wants new features. 2. The analogy with the
  6. While wiggum's attitude was clearly inappropriate, I dislike it as much as I dislike the unctuous attitude of many people vindicating Battlefront's decision to release CMBF without any new features. If CMBF was announced to introduce operations, multiplayer or online wego and replays, wouldn't you be jumping from joy? Isn't it hypocritical to denounce him for wanting something you want too? I'm a teacher and I never praise a student to the point he would grow complacent with himself, I always wan't more from him. The reason why we are not living in caverns anymore is that we wanted more. Relea
  7. Battlefront is still the only company which can and care to deliver a 3D squadbased tactical wargaming product. I think, that the problem is that, we, who are not satisfied deem CMFB as a wasted energy of Battlefront's development team. I definitely acknowledge that, in CMBF, there is a lot of new content with a LOT of work behind it, but we crave a new gaming experience not more content. Nobody forces us to spent money on CMFB, but we are upset because we actually want to spent our money, yet there is nothing we can spent it on. And a new CM line means that there will be even more content cre
  8. Wiggum, while I agree with you, they have a point, you are not going to push anybody. You obviously care for the CM series, I know it's hard, but, just let it go.
  9. I'd like to raise my voice for that part of the fanbase which is unimpressed by CMFB due to lack of new major gameplay features. This is a cold statement without any peevishness or whining, I feel as much justified to make this statement as much as BF is justified to release their products as they see fit. However, I feel obliged to give BF my opinion, because giving feedback to company I like is the least I can do for them, and is something a true fan should do. As I see it, and I might by wrong, the current CM engine reached almost its full potential. The major features I would like to see w
  10. I found this site "http://www.arpastrategy.com/"and it claim to be an Operational game actually working with CMAK - building a scenario in CMAK according to the operational situation, which you can play and you can transfer the data back to the operational layer. From the description: Desert Fox can be played alone since you have an automatic resolution feature, but it is really interesting if you use it with Combat Mission Afrika Korps © Battlefront.com AS Desert Fox includes an automated interface program which will be started when you click on the button "Tactical game". This program
  11. Maybe the game should check cover values for the tile on which the men under fire are, value of cover for tile were they are ordered to go, and distance they need to reach it.
  12. Another tip would be to start each turn by zooming out to see the whole battlefield and fastforward by 5 sec increments the whole 60 seconds. Watch for flashing icons of your troops. It takes about 15 seconds and will save you from missing out important things that happen around the battlefield.
  13. Sure, that can't be denied, the impetus I'm talking about however came from the Ukrajine-European Union Association Agreement which, as I understand it, was signed without a referendum. And, as I heard, was unnecessary for Ukraine's economy and trade, and which sole point was to put more pressure on Russia. I of course lack any solid ground for these allegations, that's only what I heard.
  14. What do you guys think about the geopolitical situation prior to the conflict? I think that the impetus to make Ukrajine pro-western was a mistake, the preasure it puts on Russia was slowly ramping up, they had to take a stand somewhere. I mean, you can't get much closer to Russia than Ukrajine, it's like trying to make Canada pro-russian. On the other hand, I believe that no group of citizens has the right to split a country of which border sovereignity is guaranteed by international law, no matter their number in a given region of the country.
×
×
  • Create New...