Jump to content

~Viajero

Members
  • Posts

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ~Viajero

  1. I'm glad there will be a pauseable real time mode in the FI game though. I'm interested to see how that works out. Still not ideal, but definitely way better than the current system. Hopefully it allows for "auto pause" at certain intervals. That would be a huge step forward. (for example game stops every 60 seconds and resumes when both players click unpause)

    You could conceivably agree with your opponent any kind of house rulevin this regard, i.e. lets pause every 60 seconds, give orders and unpause etc. This particular exemple would replicate the old tcp ip mode.

    But it would also be nice to have an inbuilt feature that would allow you to set up regular pause intervals without player intervertion, I presume that was what you meant?

  2. Anyways I know this isn't a priority for BFC, but I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when they say that the majority of their customer base is not interested in playing other people

    Yeah, maybe I have missed where this bit has been discussed more in detail elsewhere, but I ve always wondered what kind of customer base research has led BFC to that conclusion. Questionnaire filled in by random sampling of online purchasers?

  3. Quick one Moon,

    You mentioned that future customers will be able to buy the old CM:BN without the upgrade at a discount from the CM:BN upgraded to 2.0, correct?

    Out of curiosity can you give us now any rough idea on how much will that discounted price will compare to what we paid for CM:BN at the original release? And the CM:BN 2.0?

    In other words will this equation somehow hold: Old CM:BN price + Upgrade price = New CM:BN 2.0 price?

  4. I'd love to have more markets where you could call your clients insane. Because IME clients/customers are insane. And the best customers you can get are those who you can actually call insane and they say 'oh, yes, you are right'.

    Sounds like a fairy tale but sometimes it happens.

    Lol. Cant think at all of a place where that may happen almost every other post! Can you?

  5. If any of you think that the old method is somehow better, either conceptually or financially, than the new system we're offering... you're insane. Note I am not putting a smiley there because I'm serious.

    Now, if you are someone who recognizes that the new way is a ton better than what we had before, but you don't want to pay a fair price for the work we're doing to make it possible... you're unreasonable. From a practical standpoint your objections are just as meaningful as an insane person.

    Notwithstanding the validity of Steve´s justification/explanation or lack thereof, it is indeed an interesting market that where the sellers can allow themselves to call their own clients "insane". Cant wait to know more about those Upgrade fair prices!

  6. Re price is this comment an indication about these new upgrades/patches? or is it about something else I am taking out of context?

    :)

    Yes, when people actually sit down and do the math the numbers look really good. Which is why we didn't think twice about the few people that complained about having to purchase a $5 patch for a game they had been playing every week or so for 6 or 7 years. Unreasonable customers do not have the best interests of anybody but themselves in mind. If you guys want us to be around in another 10 years you must take an interest in us making enough money to keep doing what we do. It's a simple equation that (thankfully!!!) very few people fail to comprehend.

    The key thing here is we not be hypocritical. We don't like unreasonable customers, you guys shouldn't like unreasonable game developers. Which is why we worked very hard to produce a system which allows you guys to leverage existing investments way, way beyond what other games can offer.

    There no question about it that not only does this save you guys a LOT of money over time, but it continually enhances your gameplay over that period at a very low cost. On top of that, under the old system you would have to wait years to have all the updated content released again, while under this new system you never have to wait twice for the same stuff.

    On our side we get freed up to make other stuff, we get some revenue from the Upgrade itself to put towards the next game, and avoids the "race to the bottom" price discounting for prior releases whenever a new one comes out.

    Works out very well for everybody.

    Steve

  7. Haven´t been able to read all pages in this thread yet, but I am struggling to understand why BF as decided to make us pay for patches for old versions following release of new ones?

    From what I read I may be the only one that think this is a pity? :confused: . Is there any indication of the price range for those patches? Are we talking a token 3-4 USD kind of thing? or more like a half game price at the 20-40 USD range? None of the above?

  8. No it isn't. Forced area fire is constrained by AS. Targetted fire is targetted at the target, wherever it is..

    I meant area fire indeed.

    I do remember reading somewhere that area fire is actually centred around where you click rather than where the firing line gets drawn to, but I have no way of proving that one way or the other.

    That d be (good) news actually! Although I have the feeling is not correct. Can anyone confirm or otherwise? The manual suggests that the area fire is actually tied to the underlying AS albeit spread over the whole AS as the firing unit first fire to one side of the AS then the opposite etc. But still tied to that AS.

  9. By the way, force fire is definitely constrained by action spots but what about AI fire? I mean, when an AFV AI decides to fire to a just spotted enemy squad on the run, is it also constrained by action spots or fires direct to the seen contacts? Stupid question and I am sure there is a probably good coding answer but, if we can fire at direct contacts anywhere they are, and presumably not in an action spot center, why isnt equally possible to force fire to any point in LoS in the same way?

  10. It's pretty applicable to the CMx2 mechanics, I reckon. Don't move if you're under fire. Get more of your blokes shooting at his than he has blokes who can shoot at yours. Suppression via area fire. Don't create a target-rich environment.

    One thing to be a little wary of in x2 is that small arms calibre "bullet splash" in the same or (to a lesser degree) adjacent action spots will add to a unit's suppression.

    Absolutely. Not sure if JasonC plays CM2 nowadays but that quote was from a post in this very CMBN forum and not that long ago actually (I ll see if I can get the link). We are now somewhat limited by action tiles, but so are our opponents, the principles should be the same.

    EDIT: linky here http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98606&page=27

  11. I found this quite useful:

    Woods fighting is all about differential LOS.

    Differential LOS means not everyone can see everyone else (obviously), and managing it is all about keeping more of your people able to see a subset of the enemy, while others on the enemy side of the field can't see anyone and are thus temporarily useless in the front line firefight.

    You just want a few friendly shooters not being shot at, because your own in LOS of the foremost enemy outnumber that enemy (not in total men, in the number of separate physical locations occupied). Those unsuppressed own-side shooters keep the foremost enemies pinned. Once pinned they are rapidly eliminated outright. With no rushing -fire dominance not movement takes ground. The foremost friendlies are farthest into enemy LOS and thus move the least - if already taking fire they never, ever move forward. Their only job is to fire back. The rearward guys move enough to get LOS - using move to contact or very short, rapid movements - then go stationary and just fire.

    If you lose a particular firefight you pull back, fresh men make the next attempt while the survivors of the previous just rally. The available terrain is never overloaded. That available terrain area - frontage length - not the total number of men available - sets the pace of the fight and the amount of men assigned actual frontage. A longer frontage from wrapping around the enemy is useful, but not overloading is essential.

    Then everyone takes their turn at the cutting edge; the enemy faces continual fire from men as fresh as possible along the entire chosen frontage indefinitely. He can only reduce his incoming by backing away from part of the firing line. Gauging when and where that is happening becomes the primary tactical task. It isn't particularly hard; it is just a matter of listening to the morale state of the men and counting men down.

    This is all perfectly standard attrition tactics stuff and would have been entirely familiar to a Roman Legion.

    The error moderns ignorant of the principles of attrition tactics always make in such situations is to try to substitute mass or speed and rush the job. Instead of waiting for the heat of the firing line to melt the defenders, they try to push into and cut through them. In the process they overload the frontage and give huge and entirely avoidable boosts to the enemy from all his available area fire effects. (In infantry fighting at close quarters, this especially means grenades in real life, but includes unaimed small arms fire by lots of automatics, especially where concealment exceeds hard, bullet-stopping cover).

    Properly handled infantry does not require the assistence of other arms to destroy numerically inferior enemy infantry in a woods interior. It is in fact infantry's own strongest suit, that it can inflict lopsided losses on a numerically inferior defender in such situations. At first both sides will bleed about evenly (with the correct approach outlined above), with only a slight edge to the defenders from the moment of initial contact; and even that can be offset by careful many on few small scale tactics. But once the attackers have traded evenly "through" a third to half of the defender's numbers (varying with their cover and morale etc), the rest will be so pinned, low on ammo, separated from supporting units etc, that fire dominance just snowballs, often into a total defender wipe out. Outlast their limited "wind" of good order fire on the frontage, and the rest will go down with a crash.

    There is really very little cover differential available in a deep woods interior, and thus practically no defender's edge. If the attacker doesn't make the mistake of pushing too hard, too deep into LOS, or of overloading the frontage to lose more men than he needs to to area fire effects, there is no reason whatever to expect the more numerous side to lose.

  12. Taking the liberty to post this thread instead of Bimmer... hope he forgives my insolence!

    Here a link to my first ever video AAR on this 3rd round of the Farm. It is a sequence of around 20-25 turns recorded individually and joined together. When I tested the full clip it seems that it may suddenly stop in between clips. If that happens just click or reload the video again and try to move to where you left it to continue. Apologies in advance for poor quality etc!

    Viajero (Americans) vs Wartooth (Germans):

    http://www.livestream.com/viaj/video?clipId=pla_23bdf7ba-cc92-4538-8ea9-4b5f81f0fcb2

    Dont forget to maximize the video window for best viewing!

  13. How much time would you need to complete it? I don't want to drag this out, but if none of the other players objects I could extend it for no more than a week.

    Less than a week for sure. I have just send an h2hh message to my opponent to see if can just get together online at a good time and finsih off the last turns in one go.

  14. This is what the review says...

    "For more, we can announce that the next game in the series will not be about World War II and it will not be a module, but a new evolution of the Combat Mission engine ... "

    I don't think this means a completely new engine but improvement on the exsisting CMx2 engine as we saw from CMSF to CMBN. New enviroment support and new features. Fire? Basements? Destructable trees? Who knows. I guess we will find out sooner or later ;)

    It has however been awfully quiet from Battlefront and that always means that they are up to something.

    Armour covered arc?! :D

  15. So correct me if I am wrong..the next game is likely to be a modern war game utilising a new engine?

    If that is correct, why isn't the WW2 game side getting the engine 1st? I can only speak for myself but modern war games=yawn

    Havent seen anywhere in that french article a mention about "modern". Could be Napoleonic wars for all I know!

×
×
  • Create New...