Jump to content

Fredrik Wallin

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fredrik Wallin

  1. Yes, exactly! My point being that spending time on a map with all its details, the fact that these wont be part of the experience for the player lacking a specific mod is kind of blah... therefore, increasing the variations in the actual game would to a larger degree affect more players without the need to use the specific mod.
  2. Are you saying that 2 players would not need the same mods to see the same modified walls, buildings or any other mod:ed item? Obviously I understand both players would need the same module but that is not what i was asking. Again, including more options for appearances of map details in the actual game would be more beneficial to more players.
  3. Mods are just fine and I respect mod creators, the time they spend, and tjat they share the mods but....... Any mod requires both players (assuming pbem) have the same mods as well as any player downloading a scenario from the repository to have that mod. I therefore believe that implementing the suggestions in this thread in the actual game would be far better as it would benefit all players automatically.
  4. -This is not really the same as civilian vehicles, trains and such.
  5. Brilliant thread! As a part time designer and map designer for my own sake (never having time to write briefings etc), I would love to see several map related features added. These would include but not be limited to: -More textures for appearances of buildings and walls in order to increase the possibilty of variation. -The possibility of destroying one side only of a building (using the direction arrows to choose what side of the building in question). -Add civilian vehicles such as cars, trucks, railroad cars, locomotives, trams, etc... (no need for these to be operatng but more used to create the right ambiance in a map). -To be able to place rubble and other details on floors above ground level. -Burning buildings. -Foxholes not looking like chocolate donuts! -The "old" possibility to move/nudge craters when designing scenario maps. -Show the area covered by a minefield when designing a scenario as well as during setup. Thank you.
  6. I was the lucky guy who got my ass handed to me by Fredrock in this scenario. Fredrock is a very good player so no wonder we have played eachother for 10 years, (CMBO, BB & AK). First things first... The map is fantastic!!!! I would go so far as to say that if anyone wnats to learn how to do maps that look beautiful, are fun to play and gives the players many alternatives on how to play, then this is the map to study! The briefing was to the point and clear. The forces at your disposal are ample. I played as heroic German and Fredrock played the evil Americans i this scenario. The scenario makes you despair one minute and cartwheel with joy the next. As Fredrock mentioned, I was a bit to bold when trying to get into position and lost 2 Stugs early on, but on the upside, My Panthers had some good moments as well. This scenario offers you close combat and short range infantry combat, medium range tank duels and infatry vs armor. The map and the lenght of the scenario makes it possible to change your plan and act upon it. I moved units from one flank to the other to exploit local success as the game went on as well as moving forces to beef up defences where I needed it. As Fredrock mentioned, he pounded me with artillery during the scenario. he didn't kill that many germans with it but prevented them from moving anywhere. Though I must admit I was banging my head against my desk when, with 3 minutes to go, one shell landed on top of my last Stug and needless to say, destroyed it. This map and scenario will give you the chance of maneuver and show the importance of movement in combat, either to get out of trouble or to move into position to be able to punish your opponent. And Fredrock, Had I not had 2 Panthers immobilized, I would have won! All in all, a GREAT scenario!
  7. Trying to get an overview of features and/or improvements, I would put this on my list, (in no particular order!): Fire! (With the risk of sounding like a pyromaniac…) We can today add destroyed burning vehicles and vehicles can burst into flames during play. It should therefore be possible to have burning buildings, flamethrowers and burning terrain. Maybe even make it possible for flamethrowers to set some types of terrain on fire for a limited time, say 3-8 minutes on fire to prevent a grass fire to last a full 90 minute scenario and add the possibility of the fire spreading depending on weather and wind. Digging in. Allow units to dig in during a scenario. Having taken key terrain outside of initial set-up zones, troops will want to dig in and prepare an ad-hoc defense. Entrenching tools were carried and digging in was (and still is a good and quick way to improve protection for infantry). While on this subject of foxholes, is it just me or are the foxholes used now looking like huge donuts? Wire: Give infantry the possibility to breach wire (not the wire fences in the editor but the ones purchased as fortifications). Either make it possible to cut them, blow them up or cross them slowly. This of course should change the nature of the obstacle, once breached, following units should be able to use the same hole in the wire to cross it. If wire is crossed by a tracked vehicle, leave a hole where infantry can advance. Roads: Roads with ditches inherent in the terrain choice of road. This would give the possibility of narrow roads with ditches closer to the roads. Diagonal T-Junction road tiles in order to make intersections not depending on the alignment of the road. Craters: The possibility of adding craters of different sizes one by one while in the 3D preview of the map (as in CMx1) and/or to move them around as with flavor objects. Buildings: I am OK with the relatively poor protection a building gives (It takes a lot to stop a bullet) but it would be nice as a designer to be able to fortify a building, (to prevent grenades to be thrown in, block doors, prepared firing slits etc..). While on this topic, concealment in a building should be very good if hiding inside of it. Cellars! Add one more dimension to the fight. More flavor objects: Flavor objects I am missing and would add to the maps: - Dead cattle (Yes, I am no vegan!). - Flags from windows such as white sheets or French flags. - Destroyed buildings (rubble or outer walls standing only). - Civilian cars and bikes. - Rubbled/damaged walls - Rommel asparagus Commands: Armored covered arc. I know this has been discussed in other threads but it is high on the list for me. Arguments for this feature are: Ambush by Panzerfaust, Schrecks and bazookas. You do not want to give away your position on the first vehicle in a column it the next vehicle down the road is a tank for example or if you have a defensive line along a hedgerow and the enemy is advancing towards you in a line, you want to be able to make sure the AT unit takes out the supporting tank and not focusing their fire on a soft target. Maybe even take it a step further by having the unit with armored covered arc taking a “moral check” based on moral, fitness, C2C etc. to see if they hold their fire, shoot anyway, do nothing or panic and run. PLEASE NOTE I am in no way a programmer and have no idea if this is possible and how much work this would mean, I am just listing wishes here! Obviously this feature would be nice for tanks as well, why reveal your position to fire at infantry instead of waiting for that tank to move up and expose itself for a nice flanking shot? Recovering support weapons. Make it possible for a crew to go back to the AT Gun, machine gun or any other weapon the abandoned earlier. Demo charges. I am not sure if this already is possible but I have not been able to make it work but being able to throw demo charges would be great, (it was possible in CMx1). For example an infantry unit hidden on 2nd floor of a building should be able to throw a demo charge or two on a passing tank or do the same from a hidden position behind a hedge. Combined command with LOS Would be great to have a way of giving the order for a unit to: “Advance against plotted course until you have LOS to X” X being a building or a bridge or any other terrain element. For example order a machine gun to advance using hunt and having placed a “LOS to” command to the object you want them to be able to see and thereby having the unit stop and deploy with LOS to a potential target. An order like this would be realistic as a Ptn commander would order his support weapons or a squad to “Move up to the ridge (or to the tree line etc..) until you can see the house and take position there”. As mentioned above, this is just my opinion, and wish list and I am sure some of these might take a lot of work and therefore will not be seen as worthwhile or possible but at least it’s listed.
  8. well.. to go back to the start of this thread, I must sadly say I agree. CMBN is a huge dissapointment. :-( Expectations were realy high for this, waiting for a quantum leap in tactical games... and see it crumble... My issues are; 1) LOS How can it be that you see an enemy unit but the unit spotting it can not fire at it? LOS in general are confusing and unexplainable. 2) Units & vehicles not included due to time issues from battlefront. Seriously??? That says BF chose to not include units and vehicles because it was to much work or to hard and they might included it later... Not cool BF!!! 3) Graphics and terrain properties of the maps. Building collapsing like a house of cards, Building not providing cover, walls not giving any protection, bulletproof trees, road graphics poor, lack of obvious terrain features in Normandie such as sunken roads, viniards and terrain removed from previous games such as burning buildings, ruins/demolished buildings. 4) The attitude of many forum members, where any hint of complaint or being sceptical is attacked with comments as "dont play then", "wait for the patches that will fix everything" (what kind of ridiculous argument is that?? either the game is ready with some minor problems or it isn't), the common belief that CMBN is gospel and critiscism is bad and should be attacked and BF's launch of a poor product should be excused, defended and accepted.... Also, the realy good argument that didn't you play the demo before you bought the game? (at the same time knowing it is a demo and not the final product that would be with issues solved from the demo.) Finally, the argument refering to other games, such as CMSF, how is it possible to refer to another game defending CMBN, how can anyone assume that if you get CMBN, you will have played previous BF games. This is not a requiremnt in any way. All this creating a poor enviroment for discussions and not realy the best way to encourage more people to buy and play the game. 5) The attitude and responses from beta testers and staffmembers from BF where the go completelly balistic of critisized. (for examples, read the threads, I do not have the time to list them here). 6) How a scenario designer can't comment on feedback for scenarios on BF website. I, together with several of my PBEM opponents that have bought the game will most probably not play the game anymore and stay well clear of BF products, (with or without mods and/or patches) and not even close to the entertainment value of CMBBB and CMAK. Best regards, Fredrik
  9. As a customer outside the US, it is up to you to get all and any information about shipping and/or customs fees for the steel box or any other product you buy from outside the EU. It is hardly fair to be upset at Battlefront over any fees in other countries outside the US. If you find it to expensive, you should consider the download only version of the game. The option to this, if you realy want the game and the steelbox is to order it and hope customs won't care or pay any fees.
  10. I agree! Have I missed something? I thought we were the customers and frankly, beng called a moron is hardly the way I expect to treated as a customer. I find MikeyD attitude and comment disturbing but hopefully not representative for BF's attitude towards paying customers. Suggesting to check up information via google is not realy a good idea when create a game, is it? One would, or at least I do, that all the needed information is in the game. BR,
  11. as I am crazy, I forgot my name in previous post... jeeez....
  12. Historical & semi-historical! "What if" and fictional scenarios lack the feeling of purpose that I find to be an extra ingredient in scenarios. As for cresating scenarios, the most common misstakes by designers are (in no particular order): 1) Thinking "What do I add tro make the scenario better" instead of thinking "What can I remove to make the scenario better"? As posted previously, more is not the same thing as better. 2) Trying to have all the cool & rare units, vehicles in one single scenario. Same thing with overdoing the map with everything in it, such as "a beach landing with paratroopers landing next to a bridge in a bocage area with a cool bridge, minefields, a town, flooded areas while naval art. JABOS and what not" are all over the place. Those scenarios just makes you tired...... 3) write a briefing that captivates and explains! The briefing is where the player decides if he wil play the scenario or not. Furthermore, the briefing sets the mood and should always clearly explain objectives, (Errors from intel in a briefing is OK as that is Fogg of War... heehehehe), but OBJECTIVES must be included in a clear way!! Those are of course my 2 cents worth..... but I am from Sweden so I am slightly crazy.... //General Failure
  13. Played CMBB & CMAK al these years... dabbled a little with SF as well... I knew it would pay off and here we are, more or less on the eve of the launch of CMBN.... Best regards, General Failure
  14. GREAT PRESENTATION!! You gave a very good feel about the game, effect of smoke and artillery, how enemy troops are within LOS and dissapears. This latest scenario was very illuminating, yet very frustrating as I want the game NOW! AND MOST IMPORTANT: Opponent wanted for PBEM, US east coast time 10 turns/day or more for playing as soon as the game is released. (WHEN is that by the way? ) Best regards and keep up the good work, General Failure
  15. Great video. If a new video is posted, please try to include: 1) Closeup of specific units so that they can be followed for more than 5 seconds. 2) Features like artillery bursts, buildings collapsing, firing MG's etc... 3) While doing item 2, keep the camera still to prevent car sickness for the viewer. 4) This is a "promotional" video so "I go - you go" might be a good idea in order to allow the buyers of the game to be able to see the same turn from different angles and therby getting a better view and feel for the game. (I know you <dont play "I go - you go">). This is for the community that have or will buy the game so maybe upload it like we want as a "give the customer what he wants" kind of thing? 5) Show new and old terrain features a bit closer, such as haystacks, boccage, ditches, trenches, wire and what not... 6) AND MOST IMPORTANT: Opponent wanted for PBEM, US east coast time 10 turns/day or more. :) This posted video with two battle was fantastic, yet very frustrating as I want the game NOW! Best regards and keep up the good work, General Failure
×
×
  • Create New...