noxnoctum
-
Posts
1,038 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by noxnoctum
-
-
I told you, buy some dirt cheap POS laptop
. -
I've had an human opponent throw his tank crews at me in "Closing the Pocket". They cleared the town of infantry and I had to capture the town again with my HMG's.
Haha that's beyond ridiculous.
Maybe BFC could use what they did in CMx1 to prevent this... give them only a tiny bit of ammo for their pistols? Like one mag each? Either that or have them come out of the tank automatically panicked.
-
Havent had this issue either... must be something specific to your system. I'd post your whole dxdiag tbh. Maybe someone here could figure it out.
-
Well I for one have no problem still playing CMBB for large battles... anyone else who's interested PM me.
-
Yes a different hunt command would be nice... but I still want a "move to contact" command.
Again the importance of armor arcs comes into play (since with an armor arc set your tank would only stop if it sees another tank/SPG)
-
Where exactly does a vehicle draw LOS from? From the TC out of the hatch or from some arbitrary point?
-
Just played a guy on Closing the Gap... all his M10s that come out as reinforcements later in the game headed straight for my two panthers (one immobilized) which were on the dirt road next to the little mini bocaged area with a small group of trees in front (off to the right flank of the village from the German perspective).
Anyways, the M10s show up in force so I set an arc in that direction for the non-immobilized panther. It showed that it had LOS to at least a couple of the wolverines but it wouldn't fire for a while. Finally after like 3 minutes he started firing.
Even stranger, a Sherman rounded the corner of the village (probably... about 150 meters away I'd say... and started firing on my panthers). Thing was in plain sight, no trees, nothing in the way, yet it took 3 shots from the Sherman before the Panthers "officially" spotted it. Prior to that it kept going in and out of being "spotted". Very strange.
Eh... I'm just really confused. LOS for infantry makes a lot more sense to me... for armor it's like a crapshoot. I just dunno if they're going to be able to spot their targets... and if they spot their targets, sometimes they just won't shoot.
My opponent was having the same issue, though he got the worst of it since he wasn't able to get his M10s to fire on the Panthers in unison (or at all... I'm not sure if they even got a shot off)... Despite his having LOS to my tanks (he said this) his M10s refused to fire. And like I said, my panthers would not shoot at his M10s for about 2-3 minutes so it's like they were suppressed.
-
Haha this is friggin hilarious.
I will DEFINITELY be using this tactic vs human opponents.
I wonder if there will be an option to purchase "tank crew" units without the tank in QBs. Sure hope so.
-
I wanna see decapitations and dismemberment or I won't be satisfied
. -
I'd say the biggest reason for an autopause in RT would be so you can spend a few minutes checking the LOS on your hidden AT guns, tanks, etc and making sure your infantry is properly behind cover and so you can examine the terrain more closely to find small defilades and such to use to your advantage. As well as being able to command more than one platoon at once.
-
You saying we need to bend space and time and create a wormhole to get tcp-ip wego/RT with autopause
?And Six not sure what you're saying about us "trying to turn the game into SC2". That's exactly what we DON'T want. It was brought up simply as a comparison. And SC2 is wildly popular, it's a tiny minority that have stuck to SC1. Blizzard did an excellent job of taking SC:BW and basically adding small but significant improvements (the biggest of which I'd say is the ability to select more than 12 units at a time lol). Most of the people still playing SC1 are doing so because their computers can't handle the sequel. No "game modes" or anything of the sort were left out in SC2 that were in SC1. On the contrary, the SP campaign was much more dynamic (not really "dynamic" but gave you some options), we now have "cliffs" and cliff-hopping units which add another strategic layer to consider, boulders, crazy new units etc. The only thing one could possibly be pissed about is if someone REALLY REALLY misses an old unit (like the Lurker for example) that was replaced by a new one, balance (Blizz releases a patch practically every week though so this is constantly being corrected, though it will likely take a year or two for it to be truly balanced) or have some weird thing for 2d graphics only games. Also battle.net initially sucked but is up to par and way better than the old one now. Blizzard acts fast. (granted they have a ton of resources)
Anyways, thanks for posting steve, and ya if you could answer Lemon's question that'd be great. Definitely glad to hear tcp-ip wego is back on the table again.
-
Yep, and I've seen them do it on arbitrary, made-up battlefields with no real thought for cover, LOS, or terrain features.
And if he doesn't know where the MG is? Good RTS play is based on prediction. I would wager that the average CM battlefield is far more unpredictable (and harder to negotiate mentally) than the average RTS map. The average RTS map is MADE to be played on. The average CM map is designed to look and act like the real world. If you threw an RTS player into a new map every time he played, do you think he would play as optimally?
Yes. The reason these high level players are so good is because they adapt to situations very, very rapidly. The difference between Starcraft and Combat Mission is Starcraft is DESIGNED to be played at high speed, while Combat Mission is designed to be played with more time for thought involved---or so I thought. High level players are able to issue orders quickly AND think them through, that's why they're high level players.
And again, I said once they learned the basic mechanics (i.e. a PzII cannot kill an IS-2 from the front, trees provide cover, etc.)
You "wargame only" people aren't as brilliant in comparison to the rest of the populace as you think you are.
Anyways, I'm out for now.
-
OK, I will call you on this. Give me the numbers of people who want multi-player vs the number of people who will only play single player. While you gather the numbers, I will submit this.
BFC is a company who knows how many they sold and how the game is played. They determined the time to code, test, and recode multiplayer, and determined there are higher priorities to get in the game before multi-player.
They also know what would be required, if it was easy to code [as spoken by those who do not code, not aimed at you] it would have been in. Since it isn't then maybe, just maybe, it would NOT be easy to get in. Since Steve wanted multi-player and per side multiplayer in the game, and then lowered the priority of doing it, maybe there is a reason other then "they blew it?" [Again, not aimed at you]
Trust me, it is something I have pushed for for a long time, and will continue to do so. The rhetoric is ridiculous however.
Rune
You're right, if they continue to neglect multiplayer I'm sure far more people WILL be playing singleplayer! It's a vicious cycle
.They could draw in a lot more sales I'm sure if they boosted the MP capability.
Take a game like IL-2 Sturmovik for instance. Completely different genre, but I think you'd agree that it has a serious learning curve, if you've played it (at least for full real settings). (if you haven't well... just take my word for it).
Even now, a decade later, it is still getting played online, usually with 400-500 people on at any moment in a user-made lobby by a guy who just made it for free because Oleg and co. didn't bother to put in a multiplayer lobby.
The game would not have anywhere NEAR the amount of activity and continued sales if the guy who made HyperLobby had not shown up. (example: I fly regularly 3x a week with my squadron in big 80+ person battles with pre-assigned missions etc. for each flight... this would be flat out impossible or EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate if it were not for HyperLobby) Why? Because the AI sucks relative to any good human pilot.
-
I think this is wrong. I've played my fair share of RTSes (DoW, DoW2, CoH, and yes even some SC) and I have an idea of the kinds of players you're talking about.
When an APM player gets caught in his first MG42 crossfire and realizes his troops WON'T advance no matter how fast he clicks, he's screwed. Actions per minute do not equal decent tactics or a grasp on morale and terrain. Now a tactical genius and WW2 buff who *also* happens to be a high-APM Starcraft 2 player might be very, very good at keeping track of things in RT, but even that's not going to matter when he makes his first mistake.
And you don't seem to get that the people who play RTS games at a high level (not necessarily getting paid for it but GOOD) employ tactics like flanking, overwatch, diversionary attacks, etc. all the time. It's just with 4 legged aliens with giant mouths, not guys with K98s. Same principles though.
Just like any decent Starcraft player knows not to rush an enemy with a bunch of siege tanks set up on a cliff, he would know not to rush people in front of MGs. Most people DO know what a machine gun is you know.
And like I said, they would whoop anyone here once they learned the basic mechanics (controls + unit capabilities).
-
The problem is Mike brought up a bunch of ridiculous things that have no place in a wargame. People here are asking for something that was in a game released a decade ago.
Or fail that, a kind of "durh" multiplayer feature to go with realtime.
I agree though, it's very good at simulating platoon on platoon firefights in real time vs a human.
-
People could make a laundry list of what the game isn't and doesn't do. No FPS through-the-scope shooting, no flight-sim-style vehicle control. No progressing through levels earning points. No online multiplayer WeGo. And you can't create your own virtual family like in the Sims. The game is what it is. And what it is, its very good at.
-
Nah, this is not HALO. It is the quality of the click not how fast you click. Quickly dispensed bad orders will only bring about your demise faster. Again you can pace a battle to suit your own response times, despite being as decrepit as those of us who have been out of school longer than we were in it are.
Eeeehhhhhh wrong.
I bet you anything a pro Korean Starcraft player could whoop anyone on these forums in a large, say battalion sized RT battle once he learns the mechanics.
Anything larger than a platoon-on-platoon battle speed is of the essence. Yes the "quality of the click" is hugely important but even if say player B is not as "tactically endowed" as player A, but still competent, if he can think significantly faster and pump out orders faster he will win.
That's what many of us don't like.
What's funny to me is all the old timers throwing out these generalizations about people who play ANYTHING ELSE other than wargames (oh the horror!) despite the fact that we're the very ones complaining that RT turns too much into a clickfest/speed contest and gives you no time to actually ENJOY watching the battle unfold. This would be largely remedied by an autopause option, though for battalion size battles I still think wego is necessary. Regardless, I will always miss (and want) the replay option. It's just FUN to watch your tank hit the other tank squarely in the right spot over and over!
If anything, now with 1-1, watching the replay would be even MORE enjoyable, since you can watch individual soldiers reloading and getting picked off. I know I enjoyed watching multiple times my squad leader shred a shrek team with his tommy from different angles
.I gotta admit I completely don't understand BFC's priorities. They want to "move forward" into the future with 1-1 and RT and all that jazz which is fine, yet they neglect multiplayer which is a KEY COMPONENT to any modern game (other than story based shooters, adventure games, RPGs and the like)!
-
^^^That would be a nice stopgap for wego tcp-ip. Great idea!
Even if RT with autopause is implemented, I'd still want wego for REALLY big battles.
-
Same here, and I play SC2 which is arguably even more fast paced than CnC, at least in ladder matches.
-
The only thing that comes close to raging in this thread is you and the original post, which was a bit over the top though I agree with it completely.
-
In all honesty, it's not really a exaggeration. PBEM *does* require an additional amount of effort to keep it fast paced that really shouldn't be the necessary for those that want to play a reasonably paced good sized battle. I don't understand why autopause RT would have to be delayed even more than it already is. The engine is 3 years old, has evolved tremendously over time; surely, this can't be that much work. PBEM being less than ideal is an understatement come 2011.
Also, I think this community is starting to severely show a lack of respect to people voicing their criticism lately (not necessarily related to the above post). I don't know what's up with that, but the fanboyism should be cut, period. There should be room for constructive criticism.
All in all, I'd like to hear Steve's opinion on the possibility of an autopause RT mode within CMBN still.
Yep, I remember I got flamed to hell and back when I complained about this like a year ago. (and a few other things, like my wishing to have an assault command along the lines of the CMBB one... you can still acheive a similar effect with microing "Quick" movement orders to allow for time for them to fire, but it requires quite a lot of extra work---definitely not possible in a RT game vs a human)
The sad thing is MOST people on here are adults and 40+ at that so it's really pathetic. We're not on the call of duty forums here...
-
Why people didn't try the CMSF demo to see how the game played before pre ordering CMBN is beyond me....
Also I've been playing CMSF for two years SP in WEGO and with the new scenarios that come out I haven't been bored by the AI yet...and I defy anyone who will find the AI easy with a well made scenario...
Anway one mans meat is anothers poisen and I will be happy when all those who don't like the game bugger off and play something different...as I really do hope they don't hang around for the next god knows how many years moaning about how much they don't like it.
Can't wait for the time when the forum becomes a good communtiy with a love for the game like CMSF forum became...
AI's usually fine when they're on the defense, but they will ALWAYS suck on the offense. It didn't matter if BFC had 500 programmers working for them, I don't see AI being able to handle wargames on the same level as a decent human for at LEAST another decade.
Plus winning in SP, while definitely fun (I look forward to the SP campaigns), just doesn't give anywhere near the satisfaction of beating a human opponent.
-
noxnoctum are you on steam as cc/Nox per chance?
yes, you're the one I posted to come back in the chat room
. You joined then left like 5 seconds after haha. Luckily Alibaba showed up about 5 minutes later.I'd register as "Nox" everywhere but unfortunately 99% of the time it's taken.
-
Mwahahahaha. Hyperbole much?
Look, it would be great if TCP turn based makes it back in, but don't hysterical on us. Sure, PBEM may be less then ideal for some of you. But it is not the work of the devil. Chill out, just a little?
Exactly where was he hysterical and calling it "the work of the devil"? Seems like you're the one who needs to chill out.
The fanboys here are worse than the kids on Xbox live, seriously.
.
?
BF, You Blew It
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Just my 2c:
The reason BFC doesn't see more people playing multiplayer (and I am almost positive that whatever their "estimate" is it's way lower than reality), is because they don't invest more in multiplayer features.
I'm going to bring up IL-2 again. The game is a decade old but still has on average ~500 people online at any one time in a player made lobby (Oleg did not include a multiplayer lobby in IL-2). If it had not been for that, the multiplayer community would have died, period, and their sales would have suffered over the years. I'm in a squadron of about 15 people and out of those only 4 or 5 bought the game at release. Everyone else it's everything from 2003 to 2009 (me) to the latest guy who bought it in 2010.
The AI in IL-2, while not as immediately obviously sucktastic as CM's (I don't blame BFC for that, challenging AI for a wargame is impossible to code IMO, unless you just give them a ton of extra units, but that's not better AI), does indeed offer very little challenge once you get decent at the game. Even the people who DO play against the AI almost ALWAYS do so through "coop" (i.e. a band of humans vs a larger group of AI). Why? Because even if you do want to shoot down bots it's more fun to do so with other humans screaming at you over teamspeak to split-s before you get railed by 20mm!
I really completely agree that the sentiment that "multiplayer players are the minority" (which I'm sure is the case for CMSF---like others I didn't play multiplayer---except for maybe 4 games over like 4 years?---not because I don't like playing against humans, but because the MP options were so poor) acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like saying "The majority of Mass Effect players only play singleplayer". Well no ****! That's because there IS only singleplayer!
Look at games like Men of War. Definitely not anywhere as realistic as CM, but it is certainly much harder to get into than CoH for example. Honestly I gave up on it because of its UI. (I disagree with whoever was trashing CM's UI btw... once you know all the hotkeys it really doesn't matter... though I do agree the camera controls are clunky, but I can get past that, especially in a TBS environment)
The game is hard to get into because it's much less forgiving than other games and because of its, frankly atrocious UI. BUT, it has a multiplayer lobby and good multiplayer options, and so, it's quite popular even though it's not well polished at all!
I think CMSF in its current state is far more polished, and I'm sure loads of Men of War players for example would be more than happy to switch over to CMBN if it had better MP options.
Like I said, self-fulfilling prophecy.
I understand that they need to prioritize gameplay first... but I saw in there Steve mentioning graphics. No one really cares about graphics except for high school kids who buy every call of duty game released. The vast majority of people playing PC games realize that gameplay > graphics every time. So I would put forth that graphics in CMBN and shiny explosions etc. should be at the very BOTTOM of the list. Crysis is a shining example of this. Although it was lauded by critics and many players for like... a week... MANY people now view the game as basically just a tech tool to push your computer to its limits and see how it fares. The enjoyment you get from good graphics wears off very quickly. How else can you explain the LOADS of people playing Starcraft 1 up until Starcraft 2's release last year? It was a decade old game, and many new, shinier RTS games had come along, but it still had a massive amount of people online at any given moment. Had it not been that SC1 offered good MP options, it would have died probably within 3 years, and Blizzard would have lost all the sales they made later. (and yes they made plenty of sales of SC1 years after its release)
You ask any PC gamer what their top 10 games of all time are and 90% of the time at least half of those games will have been released before 2001. Certainly the case for me, and thing is, I STILL play those "ancient" games, even though they have horrible graphics by today's standards.
I REALLY firmly believe that if CMBOB comes out with a full multiplayer lobby + wego tcp-ip and RT with pause it will attract a LOT of new customers. For one, it won't get thrashed by mainstream review sites for lacking something that most take for granted in 21st century gaming. (and don't give me that "Gamespot etc. are just stupid mainstream sites that don't care about wargaming"---they gave CMBB a 9.1 and editor's choice---to put that in perspective that's a higher score than they gave Starcraft 1 and the original X-com, and is close to the 9.4 that Half Life 1 got---all 3 of those games are considered some of the best PC games to ever be released, so they do "get it")
So if BFC has to put something on the backburner to get proper multiplayer options into the CMx2 line of games I suggest they make it fancy animations and graphical enhancements. Those things are great, but right now, we can't even enjoy them in RT
. (even SP RT where you can pause every 5 seconds---it's more fun to actually watch a guy shooting his garand and reloading it then just seeing him freeze framed firing 
)