kulik
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kulik
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
henchmenbeta 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.
-
Am I the only one who finds the above sentence, which sets a hostile ad hominem tone of the reply, completely unnecessary? And IMO it's also twisting of words for the cheap effect to make a hit ad hominem possible. At least to me it is obvious, that he did NOT want to talk about his problems.
I am no longer wondering, why Steve's followers also use this ad hominem style all the time. Just a few examples from a handful of the following comments:
Yup, that one hurt quite a bit.
-
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 students was misunderstood, my fault, should have made it clearer. Again this wasn't about Wiggum, I was referring to the relation between playerbase and Battlefront. While we, as playerbase, should praise and support you, we also shouldn't cease to demand more and push you. Take for instance the machine gun patch that made machine guns lethal, I remember how adamant you were about the existing mechanics and how you slandered the "biliard pool" test somebody made demonstrating how in the game you could charge a squad against a mg. Yet, we annoyed you to a point when you gave way and the game is so so much better now. This is what I mean by demanding more and pushing you.
3. Your game, your terminology, your rules...my opinion, my disappointment, my problem. Fair enough.
4. I was describing that since CM games are the only wort wile 3D tactical squadbase wargames on the market, "Go play something else" isn't really an alternative at all. Its either play this or don't play the genre, you got us by the balls. This is how it is and needs no comment.
Best regards.
-
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. Releasing a game without new functionality only content is a step backward. Now, I am a capitalist, I believe people are to be payed for their work, strange as it is, if BF would announced CMBF as a new module and said that content wise they value it at 55 bucks, I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't buy it of course, but it would fit their game-module-pack scheme. It's a question of principle. CMBF sets a dangerous precedence, from now on, if a new CM game is announced, we'll never now weather we'll get functionality and content or content only.
Again I don't have to buy CMBF and save me 55 bucks, the problem is that I wan't to spend those 55 bucks, I'm spending something far more valuable to me than money, my time, I'm loosing day after day that I could enjoy a CM game with a new functionality or improved gameplay. "Go play something else" is not a valid argument as there are no other companies making decent 3D tactical squad based wargames.
Best regards.
-
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 created for that line. As Waclaw said, we have been told that the module system is here to introduce new content without engine improvements and now we have here a whole new game which does exactly that.
CMSF and CMBN are the only finished CMx2 games, so there are probably modules coming for all other CMx2 games and now CMBF, which didn't improve the engine, and which will get its own modules, i.e. we are loosing hope we will ever get CMx3 or significantly improved CMx2.
Best regards.
edit:
I can see why BF lacks the impetus to try something new. I know that BF had to withstand a ****storm from the fanbase after they moved from CMx1 to CMx2. And that the long time period of patching CMSF without making any money had to be extremely tough, just compare it to the last few years when they could chug new content twice a year and cash-in heavily. In their shoes, I would never again consider to make a something new with player base which throws money at the screen without any demand for new engine or significant changes to original engine.
-
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.
-
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 were discarded by BF as beyond the engine capabilities. Fair enough, thus, I have no high hopes for upcoming CM games in this engine. If a setting catches my attention, I might buy it, chances are I won't. The game will give me more toys, but the gameplay experience will stay mostly the same. After I finish all campaigns and scenarios from previous games and modules, which happens in like 5 years, I might consider to buy a new CM game just to get more.
Best regards.
-
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 will build the scenario in CMAK according to the operational situation. Terrain conditions, units strength, type, fitness, experience... are taken into account. Results of the battle have to be typed once you reenter the operational game. All the process has been worked and reworked and is now as much smooth as it can be, given the limitation of such a system.
Here is the manual: http://www.arpastrategy.com/Portals/5/Repository/DesertFox/Manual_070.pdf
Is this legit?
-
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.
-
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.
-
On the other hand we might look at why many, non Russian Ukranians mightnot want to be under Russian control. The Soviet Ukranian War 1917 - 1921,, the Famine of 1932 - 33, the forced Collectivisation under Stali, the experiences of WW2 and the aftermat including the suppression of the anti Soviet Partisans. Russins will of course differ in their views of the same events and of course the Western view will differ as well. Maybe their past experience with Russia was a strong motivation for Ukranians to move away from Russia towards the West, Just as the experiences of Russian Ukranians in the past encouraged their move towards Moscow.
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.
-
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.
-
I concur, there is no way to get unbiased info on the issue, many topics are outright contradictory, you can read something on pro-western media and the exact opposite "facts" on Russia today.
-
It may be useful sometimes, like when the game ends before I can administer buddy aid to soldiers incapacitated in the last turns before the ending screen. Or, when I REALLY want to hunt down that one unit which was making my life miserable during the game.
-
More often than not, I would prefer them to be more trigger happy. For ambushing troops, target arcs are necessity even at present.
-
Generally, I would like to see more return fire even from covering and pinned troops, however, less effective in terms of accuracy.
Other than that, troops seem to shoot only if they have a clear ID and visual contact with the enemy.
I would like to see tac ai firing on suspected enemy positions, and firing in general direction of the enemy in short range fights such as woods and buildings; or, if they can see a friendly squad being shoot at, they could also shoot at least in direction of their attacker.
-
Ok, don't call it a module then, call it anyway you want, I just would like more functionality instead o content. Somehow I've expected that the new modern setting will make a huge leap like CMSF once did, or maybe not that huge, but huge within in the possibilities of the CMx2 engine.
-
More feature oriented modules - Coop, 1vs1 campaigns, replays (realtime which you could pause and rewind the action).
Wouldn't mind if it would take more time to develop, with the current frequency of CM releases I have enough content to play with for a year.
-
I have really hoped we would get realtime with replay for CM:BS; the holly grail of CM experience.
-
But seriously, the ten bucks?
The sulfur miner of Ijen makes about $7 dollars in a day breathing toxic fumes getting killed a bit each day in the process. Tell him he has to work three days to upgrade his CMBN and CMFI.
Luckily I'm not an Ijen sulfur miner, but I don't like the sort of argument of how cheap something is, for a kid who has a thing for wargaming and has unemployed parents may 10 bucks be quite a fortune. I respect all the other arguments, and think upgrades are a good thing.
-
Prepare for some blasphemy. :-)
Ok, I have enough CMx2 games to last me 10 years, and most features I would like to see are, as far as I know, off limits for the CMx2 engine. I know there are still lots of theaters not cowered, but yup, I would like to move on to CMx3.
I would also like to see a BattleTech setting on CMx2 engine.
...wow, I sound like I'm trolling.
-
Lots of monotonous work? Hire temporarily one or two mediocre coders, 250 hours of labor = 16 days of work for two guys. Its all the CMBN and CMFI sales X 10 bucks, I recon you could cover their salary.
Personally, I doubt that I would use tank riders in CMBN, but you are setting a dangerous precedent here "Upgrade will bring older titles to most current feature level, except these features...".
What I'd like to see in CM3...
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
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.