kulik
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kulik
-
-
My man!!
Farts? We have another snow day in NE Pa and probably while you were typing your message I was telling my wife why I wasn't interested in braising cabbage for dinner. I told her that the onlt thing cabbage is good for, beside cole slaw, is for making me fart.
Victory status is not something you get in game updates on. In this scenario I am able to see what each of my victory locations are worth. There are 4 areas of the Villa that are worth 75 points, Hill 154 and Hill 144 are each worth 75 points and the 2 exit locations in the rear are each worth 75 points. There was no mention in the briefing about targets I should be taking out or friendly force preservation but it is usually assumed that some points are awarded and deducted for casualties.
The thing about CMx2 battles though is that I have no idea what his objectives are. He may have a completely different agenda. The scenario could be designed that the Villa gives him 600 points and must be held at all costs or the Villa may be of little point value and the rear exit VLs are where the money is at for him. That part I won't know until after the battle is over. For now, as in real life, all I need to worry about is my mission. Trying to guess if his mission is the same or different will only distract me.
So in fact you both could win?
If yours missions objective's don't overlay too much? I mean somebody will probably end with better score, but if his score is high and your score is high thus his and yours objectives are accomplished its a success, no? ...it may be a stupid scenario design, but it is possible, huh?
...actually it may be great for meeting engagements which always ends up as boring sprint to the flag and hold it. If you designate different objectives, yours on his side of map and his on yours, it may get really interesting.
-
Not going to start a new topic for this but i have a question.
I play lots of Steel panthers and the common doctrine (listed also in manual) is to open up on the tank with every gun you have, even with MGs and small arms.
If you accumulate a huge amount of projectiles hitting the tank, the conditions inside this "steel pot" have huge impact on the crews morale and it gets pinned (crew scared to even look through the eye sights) and they may even bail out(which is kind of stupid if you ask me).
Is this historically correct?
Have non-penetrating shots MG and small arms fire any effect on armor in CM:BN?
-
He is playing WEGO, but it's still quite possible to miss things when a lot is going on. I'm not sure that it'd be worth it having the game notifying the player about things - how would the game tell what was important to the player?
Just to clarify - importance is not an absolute, in some situations the battle might hinge on a tiny and seemingly insignificant event. The computer wouldn't know if it was important - the player might not even know if it was important!
Its not like we couldn't live without it but it surely would save you lots of preventable anger. Look at elvis, hes doing pretty well, but from his last clause you would think it may be a thing that could cost him victory.
Killing or loosing a gun, heavy support weapon, vehicle or armor is always worth noticing when not important.
And for me as a realtime player its sometimes really hard to keep track of things. Why is my squad almost wiped up, when there is a Stryker providing overwa...oh burning Stryker.
Having autopause in RT could help to that point that this notification feature may not be even needed thou.
-
This screen shot is perhaps the most important one of the game for me. As you read my next few AAR postings you will need to keep in mind that when I played this turn of the game I did not see what is in this screen shot. Decisions were made with no knowledge that this had happened. When I finally found this moment I saw that it occurred in the last second of the turn. Had I seen this when it happened my choices would have been very different.
The last major AT asset is knocked out and I have no idea………………..
Now, that must be frustrating.
I bet that was suggested already, but the game could list important events for the player. Like in TOW you get notice when you take casualties and have vehicles damaged or destroyed. (You can even set autopause and autocenter for such circumstances, although i think its not so important as listing it self.) And as for this situation maybe list of confirmed kills and spotted targets. It may raise situational awareness for the player and prevent such frustrating things.
-
Got me thinking. The PAK shooting at this distance at moving target partially visible (in tall grass) without any near object to easily judge its speed and distance hitting with first round. Hans that's some fancy shooting. ...or is there some forgotten CMSF fire-control system.
-
I was one of those who pushed hard on these forums to have FOW affecting fortifications no matter the visual cost. ...and im f*cking proud on it!
-
Comment on Fourth Installment.
I work as a civil engineering designer. And i have to say, many of the programs we use have sometimes trouble to integrate the road model to digital terrain model. And im talking here about applications which license for one computer costs 4000+ $.
So while im still going to bitch about not having tcp/ip wego, or autopause RT, i have to give credit for this.
-
In this case I don't see any reason why we couldn't give RT players the option to have an enforced Pause as well as WeGoers. I personally don't see too much value in that, but I can see how it could be appealing to some.
Steve
For me, its a feature which could make all the difference.
I was a wegoer to my bare bones, but when CMSF got enjoyable i tried really hard to learn to play it realtime (i agree it isn't clickfest). And i succeeded, BUT while i could end with a decent score much of the enjoyment from the actual gameplay was gone (Specially on company level i couldn't play at all.) and i played it less and less to a point i play CMSF with my friends less than CM1 games.)
When i imagine, that i could issue orders like in wego and then get all the benefits of realtime...oh boy, its a great thought.
-
Yes some kind of pause thing would be nice. Like an auto-pause every 60 seconds.
Brilliant idea that was suggested couple of times, yet i don't recall that battlefront ever replied to it.
IMO it takes the best from both worlds and would make company level games finally playable through TCP/IP. ...doesn't seems hard to implement either (In some of the module at least.).
-
As i remember that CM:N will have realtime WEGO.
-
Something better than standard WEGO is on the way as i recall.
Steve mentioned that they are going for something like wego combined with realtime. You will have comfort to pause the game and issue orders then unpause and continue in realtime gameplay.
I don't remeber if they going to make it chess like etc. you have timer so you can't pause for too long and too frequent or you run out of "pause time" or if the pause will be somehow fixed in terms of classical turns.
Anyway this systems seems to me that it takes the best from realtime and wego. Looking forward to it!
-
Maybe some battles like first battle of Saigon or siege of Khe Sanh could be interesting, but for vietnam theatre i would like to see more infantry squad tactics (adjusting volume of fire, draging wounded soldiers, placing booby traps, underground tunels etc.) Maybe after CMSF2.
Edit: Oh i didn't read sequoias reply.
-
Seems fair to me.
And what about kind of record feature? Like after the battle is over, option to "save this battle" into a file and then watch it like a movie with movable camera and forward/backward options, send it to friends to watch it and analyze tactical decision made...
Im sure this will get the "too much work" stamp, but it would be great.
-
Heh!
Yes, we are also planning to allow RT to pause. We've got a couple ideas about how to do that exactly, but at this point I can't say what the final method will be.
Steve
I think i can live with that. For the final method i suggest it could be partialy optionable to set how many pauses, how long with how much delay etc.
How goes the work on multiple players per side?
-
The whole idea of realtime takes an element of GOD MODE away from the stagnant like turn based mode. Realtime means you are not everywhere at once. I think its good that a human element of mistake is added to the sometimes PERFECT chess matches wego offers.
Besides its nothing like company of heroes where you really can miss things the action is so fast.
All in all their must be balance to the god mode, learn to concentrate on the critical parts of the battle. Thats what a good general does with his god goggles.
I thought you could pause realtime mode and give orders anyways? Guess its not in multiplay.
Counterargument: but my guys are dumb, i have to obssesively control everyone of them at once. Well the enemy AI is dumb too and if its not then your human enemy is in the same boat.
The only real argument i can think of is the the AI can give counterorders to all of its units at once where a human needs to take time to do it. I just don't think the AI in this game is that smart??
That's i want to be able to control the game in realtime. The pause part would be just to coordinate troop action on other side of battlefield and to enjoy in replay how that panzerfaust took out that tank. Its shame to overwatch the battlefield from birds perspective and loose the small graphical details just to be sure you don't get flanked.
Platoon level...ok, Two platoons...problematic, but at soon as you get three and more platoons you will get punished not for your tactical decisions, but just for "being not there". It may suit somebody, but personally i hate it.
-
I used the search feature on this forum, but was unable to find if something like this was suggested.
We have realtime and we have wego. While realtime provides more control of the battlefield in smaller battles, in larger battles it lowers your situational awareness (What does this pile of burning junk on spot where my striker was parked means?) and control of force bigger than platoon sized force is complicated and clumsy. And finally you can't enjoy the battle highlights.
Wego is slow paced and the force size doesn't matter, you can enjoy the highlights and you are always aware of what is going on. But when you make a mistake during your planing you stuck the 50 second to watch your men getting killed.
So,
i would like to see "realtime wego" system for TCP/IP play. It would be realtime gameplay with forced pause after each 60 seconds. This would combine the positives from both systems
You would be able to control the action realtime, while managing all your units during those forced pauses in reasonable way.
Two additional suggestions to this:
1. The pause could occur randomly anywhere from 0:30 to 1:30 - this would help to prevent the "step like" turn based planning we have in wego.
2. As im aware, in wego the turn is computed before the round and thus may be rewinded repetitively, so this one would be a bit complicated, but it would be ideal to be able to rewind the last turn. This would probably mean to getting rid of the blue bar and replacing it with some sort of record feature since you would be able to change the orders during turns.
Thanks
-
The new QB system will be in Normandy, not before then. We are also not improving the CM:SF implementation of QBs. Since we're going to completely redo the system any time spent mucking around with the existing system is a very poor use of our time. And that matters because you guys have about 10 years worth of stuff you want in, so wasting a month or two on a system we're going to junk anyway means not getting other things you want which won't be junked.
The new QB system will have the following:
1. Player selected "forces", in the way the current QB system was intended to work.
2. Player selected "units", much like how CMx1 worked.
3. Maps which can be randomly assembled from "mega tile" maps (much like many old style board wargames, like Panzer Leader).
What the new system will NOT include are:
1. An obvious, in your face point system for people to squabble over.
2. Completely randomly drawn maps.
Steve
Thats sound quite good. But im not sure about what the "mega tile maps" are. It is something like for instance tiles 200x200 meter which you can randomly connect to produce bigger maps? But how does the road system on those maps work? Or elevation differences?
-
I didn't finished any scenario in CMx1 and only two of them in CMx2, for me it was all about multiplayer QuickBattles and various singleplayers QuickBattles unit testings and model situations created in couple of minutes.
I buyed CMSF and i play it only for few hours after each patch is released to see whats new. Buying modules would be for me a waste of money since they only expand the types of gameplay that i don't like to play. Now don't get me wrong, i like the system of Shock force, but i want to model encounters with couple of clicks and not be forced to some kind of campaigns and scenarios.
I keep high expectations towards CM:N thoug.
-
Wego for me. But it would be great to have option to switch to 30 sec interval.
-
The dialogues are really bad, but the ingame voices are good "Zielt auf die infaterie!!!" and simmilar shouts, i gues you have to suffer through the cutscenes.
-
The ToW series and MoW really aren't very comparable. You only command a single squad of infantry in MoW versus the company sized and much more in ToW. But the control you have over this squad is in great detail from managing weapons, ammo, mines, AT weapons, etc. You can also take control of tanks, field guns, APCs. There's also a direct control feature, it feels like a FPS in this mode, but the view is still RTS.
I have to disagree with you in the thing that in MoW you control just a single squad of infantry. Its true that you have the possibilities to micromanage every soldiers and thats really needed in mission where you have just a couple of guys. But apart of that there are missions where you control manny squads and vehicles. Even in multiplayer you have possibilities to set unit cap to 160 point while 1 squad of 6 men is 6 points and most tanks are worth 20-110 points.
The TOW is simulation while MoW is more like "Band of Brothers" or "Saving private Ryan".
-
I wasn't that keen on the micro management and the lack of a single player skirmish mode in SHOWW2 so I don't think I'll get this game. I like to control squads not have to tell each soldier when to use a molotov cocktail instead of a frag grenade. If they sorted these things out so you controlled squads and they used the appropriate weapon it would be more attractive, but that's the style of game it is so it's fans probably like it that way.
Well the skirmish mode is added through mod. Its dynamic campaign generator, so its much better than simple skirmish. You order which part of battlefield you will attack and what to deffend, with the resources you have.
I didn't play SHOWW2, but the soldiers in MoWe are quite smart and will do their best to survive. They seek cover when under fire, throving AT grenades on tanks when they are close and frag grenades on infantry. They behave like you order them if you set the orders to "move at will" or "deffend" and for attacking "fire at will" "return fire" "don't shoot". The squads share ammo, grenades, medkits and weapons so no need for micromanagement in this way. Give the demo a try it shows some of the features, so you will now better after you played it, but it doesen't show the best part- multiplayer.
-
So how does Men of War compare to the new Theater of War 2?
hey look similar. I heard MoW does not have a slirmish mode for single player battles. Does TOW?
TOW looks more polished, but I am not crazy about Afrika only battles. Wanted to get some opinions before I download a demo or two.
Hard to compare MOW with TOW2. The TOW2 is hard core simulation and MOW uses realism to raise its fun factor.
What is the bad thing about TOW? For me it was the fact that if you want to have overview to comand troops you have to zoom out so you dont see those good lookink models and effects. In MOW they reduced the distance ratio in about 1:10, so if you fire at tank 100m away the shell will loose power as if it was fired at tank 1000 meters away. It may seem weird but its works great and let you enjoy the details like burning people on fire jumping out vehicles after hits. And of course every shot (smal arms included) has its balistics. ...so its not realism but its surely seems like realism.
The second great thing in MOW is physics. Iv seen like flying part of wall from exploded house killed my soldier, or like fallin tree destroyed my jeep, fire that spread between houses bushes and trees etc. And of course every object like the ruble or wrecks can be used as cover.
And finaly the third great thing is the content. It has germans, usa, brits, soviets and in free expansions there will be even japs and pacific theater and of course 1939-1945 epochas.
I think my statement that its stuck between Company of heroes and Theatre of war is accurate. Its still like watching Band of brothers, but you dint get the HP bars for tanks and all the silly things from COH.
The demo will give you some answers, but the multiplayer is about 5 times much more fun.
-
Well, its worth a try. With my lack of tactical thinking i enjoy that in MOW there is no morale for troops so they fiercly charge at MGs nests and get slaughtered and not ****ting their pants like in TOW or CM. :-)
Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Thanks for the answer.