Jump to content

moeburn

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. You'd think if there were some changes significant enough to be called "major", they would be significant enough for you to remember off the top of your head. But in my experience, whenever someone vigorously argues with you for a while and then finally at the end says "I'm not gonna waste my time answering that, I won't do your work for you", it's usually because they've realised they don't have an argumentative leg to stand on. I do - I love pouring through features lists for every release, eager to see what they've come up with. But because I was honestly curious to know if I h
  2. Um, maybe it's just be, but I think that's a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration of what I said. I think I've remained calm, polite and productive throughout this entire thread, aside from one time I said "not a damn thing is going to change", and while that might be an unfair and frustrated vent, it's a far cry from the kind of bannable whining you're talking about. Well I can't speak to whatever their attitude was to get them banned, but if the complaints are similar to mine, maybe that should suggest something?
  3. Sure it is! Here: What kind of major changes have you seen, other than new units and new weapons in new theatres of war? Maybe I missed some, or I'm not thinking clearly. I think the most significant change I can think of was shader and bump mapping support, and I personally wouldn't qualify that as a major change. We've gotten water, bridges, on-map artillery and anti-aircraft support, but that's just bringing us to the level we had in CMx1. What else is there?
  4. Oh come on now, I almost thought I was going to get a productive discussion with you. That kind of immature tone is uncalled for. Well that is just a level of paranoia that I am not sure how to respond to. Anyone else here feel okay with this guy speaking for them? Anyone else suspect that even though I made this account 5 years ago, I for some reason made another account, got banned on it, and then came back to this original one? You say that, and yet, my comments seem to have struck a nerve with you. I mean I guess it is to be expected, you get the same thing anywhe
  5. And yet, there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens. My point is that the fact that a company hasn't disappeared after 10 years isn't necessarily an indicator of a healthy business strategy.
  6. Another example are all the companies that get away with selling preorders to broken games that they rushed out the door before they were finished. It's a sound "business strategy", because it makes them money - if it wasn't, they would have stopped doing it 20 years ago - but it doesn't mean it is one that anyone would knowingly support.
  7. I wasn't aware that taking the old engine and putting it in new theatres and scenarios was "absolutely necessary to make money and survive". And you're saying that improving the UI and adding more features generates zero additional income? You wouldn't believe the number of people to whom I've shown this game who say they want to enjoy it, but can't get past the UI. It is venting, and I made every indication that that is what I was doing. It isn't "blatantly and ridiculously wrong" though - Normandy, Afghanistan and Black Sea and the like all amount to expansion packs for Shock For
  8. Weren't being able to shoot at planes and on-map mortars available in the very first CMx1 games?
  9. Oh come on now, there's no need for hyperbole. I hardly think anything I've said so far could qualify as a "hissy fit", but I did offer some constructive criticisms and shared my pessimistic feelings about them getting implemented, and I understand some people don't like to hear that sort of thing, so I'm sorry you had to read it. If more people would prefer new scenarios and units over feature and UI changes, then I guess mine is the unpopular opinion. But if nobody voices their opinion on what they'd like to see, then Battlefront will just have to make their best guess as to what wou
  10. Well if they're so limited in resources that they don't have the time to code a follow command, where did they find the time and money to develop all the new 3D models, research the realistic characteristics, design new missions and campaigns, and develop a storyline for Black Sea? I understand that this is a small company and there's only so much they can do, I just find the choice of what they choose to do with their limited resources questionable, from what I can see here as a consumer. But then of course, I'm not seeing things from their perspective, I don't know how things really wor
  11. Why is that? I mean it's true. I love this game to death but it's been 8 years since the last major update. Everything after Shock Force has amounted to what other companies would sell as expansion packs. I honestly cannot think of a single major change to Combat Mission that has been made since Shock Force.
  12. So can any Combat Mission devs chime in as to why the heck this, or any kind of situational awareness aid hasn't been implemented yet?
  13. The fact that this roster concept was brought up and heavily discussed over 3 years ago only solidifies my fear that not a damn thing in the Combat Mission series is ever going to change.
  14. Yeah that is the best solution I've come up with, is hanging the camera in a position that keeps all my units in view. Of course there are instances when you really need to zoom in on something to target or navigate it properly.
  15. Absolutely, I welcome those moments, when they are a result of my poor tactics and planning. When that happens, it makes the game feel more intense, more realistic, and I keep playing. Not when they are a result of a cumbersome UI. If I didn't even get a chance to see it happen, then it doesn't feel like I lost that unit because of my poor skills, it feels like I lost them because of a crappy interface, and that frustrates me and I end up reloading the last save game.
×
×
  • Create New...