Ranger33
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ranger33
-
-
Oh believe me, spend enough time on the Victoria and Europa Universalis boards and you will find that those guys have just as much of an obsession with history as anyone here. Especially when you get into discussions on the merits of some obscure revolution in 1500's southeast Asia, and whether it should be implemented into the game
-
Paradox Interactive makes grand strategy games (Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Victoria) that are just as niche as anything available here, but drops the price in half within 6 months, then puts them on sale for less than $10 on a semi-regular basis. Not to mention that the starting price for their games is usually $40. The hardcore fans buy in at release for the higher price, then curious and patient fans get the game at the reduced price, finally, they pick up impulse buyers with the insanely low prices during short term sales. They seem to be doing quite well with that model.
I for one would love to play CM:A (I already have the full CMSF set), but not for $35. Put that gem on sale for $20 or less and I wouldn't be able to resist. I'm also very tempted by the Strategic Command games, but, again, not for the current asking price.
-
Use a very small covered arc and your guys shouldn't fire at anything. I would prefer a "return fire only if fired upon" sort of button, but that's the best we have right now.
-
They didn't call it "Hedgerow Hell" for nothing. The fact is that they did attack through hedges just like that, right into defended fields.
I guess the best solution would just be more options in the editor. Something like "small' gaps that infantry can pass through but at a much slower rate. They could be put in more frequently than the big gaps, but the downside of using them is tiring your guys out quickly.
-
Very cool! I missed these the first time around and can't wait to give them a spin. Red vs Red is always welcome.
-
You guys make fine points. I don't want to get into a big debate about the finer details, since the war was different from one field to the next anyway. The game doesn't match reality, in multiple ways, but I don't think a 100% realistic game would be much fun. So, I will rephrase my statement: For the purpose of enoyable, playable scenarios for CMBN, I would prefer to see infantry gaps in most hedgerows. I don't think anyone likes the maps that force you into artificial chokepoints by making every hedgerow an impassable wall, and even worse, not giving you any charges to blast through it with.
-
From the first hand accounts I've read, infantry should be able to find a way through most hedges. A lot of the battles are described as fighting for one hedge after another, with the Germans falling back each time. Now, if they had to bring their pioneers over to blow a gap for their infantry all the time (like in some CMBN scenarios), I don't think they would have lasted so long
Another thing, if all the hedges are thin enough for infantry to see right through and fire weapons, MGs, bazookas, etc. through, shouldn't they be able to wiggle through there in a reasonable amount of time?I think reality would be best reflected by at least a couple of infantry gaps in just about every hedgerow. You could decide that one was particularly thick and tall, so it has no gaps, if you wanted.
-
Task Force Narwick is another one that I believe only requires the base game. It's a bit frustrating though, as it is designed to be a combined arms type of campaign, but the maps (at least for the first few missions) are way too small. In some of them it's just luck whether you take casualties in the first 30 seconds.
Once you get the modules things will really open up, I think there are well over 20 campaigns out there. I wish there was a sticky here with links to all of them, as combing through the repository searching for them is a royal pain. I thought I had most of them, but noticed 2 in FMB's sig that I was missing! More wood for the fire I suppose.
-
There's also the Steam group, though I don't know if it's as active as it once was. You can at least see who's online and talk directly to them on there.
-
It's a pretty interesting book. It's more about the logistics of keeping an armored division up and running than anything. I don't remember the details of this part though and my copy is 150 miles away. The author was in a unique position (running paperwork and news between the front and HQ) so he knew pretty much everything that was going on, but certainly would not have witnessed any of this himself.
-
What about fixing the shadows? Its really frustrating that at certain angles they are wonderful and add so much depth to the models, but then you move the camera and it turns into a total mess. Not to mention shadows showing up on both sides of solid metal plates. If the vehicle self-shadows can't be fixed, I would love to see an option to only have shadows cast on the ground and not on the vehicle itself.
-
I don't have any games going currently, would gladly take on a couple. ranger33pbem@gmail.com if anyone is interested. I'm very flexible on battle size and side. Probably 1-2 turns a day.
-
Could the difference also be attributable to different capabilities of the respective video cards? I.e., some are better than others and deliver higher rez, sharper, contrastier images?
Michael
This comment caused me to look at my graphics settings and discover that I have been playing on "balanced" this whole time. Maxed everything out and lo and behold the game does indeed look significantly better. Go figure
On the downside, the shadows still glitch out all over the vehicles. That has got to be fixed. If it can't be done soon, at least give us an option to turn on environment shadows only, since they look fine and give the terrain some contrast.
My other pet peeve about the graphics is the texture pop in. I'm pretty sure my card, that can run Crysis maxed out, can handle drawing all of the terrain, all of the time.
My one final opinion for the night
, is that BFC should contract out Aris to do the textures from now on. After using his, the default ones are just..bleh -
Hmm. Same thing with these I guess? The game would look so much better if there was some kind of depth of field or filter to smooth out the razor sharp edges on everything.
-
Graphics improvement: depth of field
It was stated that the screenshots were not photoshopped. Since the newer ones show a depth of field effect, i assume that will be one of the enhancements.
Can anyone confirm this? I assumed some of the shots were doctored a tad, since some are far higher quality than others. Would be cool but I doubt it.
Edit: For example, this one
vs
this one.
One of these things is not like the others
-
Was kinda holding out until they announced officially what is in, but then I knew I would get it no matter what and went ahead and ordered. If CMSF is anything to go on, the modules will make the game exponentially more fun. The base CMBN game is rather "vanilla" just like CMSF base was, but once you mix in multiple nations and formations within those nations, it makes things far more interesting. Not to mention how the scenario making doors will swing wide open once CW is out. You can only do so much with standard Germans vs standard Americans (+ paras).
-
A couple more:
Not having to start all over if you misclick when plotting artillery.
Marking "out of contact" units by putting a red ring or some such around their floating icon. (This one isn't really for me but I think a lot would like it)
When completing a mission in a campaign, it would be nice if you could save and quit without having to load the next map.
-
Yes, I can't remember the name but there are mods that are basically just a bunch of (good) pictures in the repository. One for each side.
-
Move your unit next to the jeep. As stated above, ammo sharing will happen automatically if the units are part of the same formation.
They have to stay by the jeep to actually use the ammo that way though. To put it in their own inventory and take it with them they have to get in the jeep and use the "Acquire" command.
-
One thing that isn't right IMO is the Rambo attitude of tank crews that have bailed out. In comparison currently a Stug that spots a Sherman often reverses to safety, doesn't want to fight. A MG armed HT that it hit by rifle bullets often wants to avoid the fight and escapes. But when a single tank crew member armed with a pistol sees several enemy soldiers that have rifles, LMG etc. what happens? Escape? Nope, he keeps fighting as if his enemy had just rocks to throw.
Perhaps the crews carry over their "Fight or Flight" response when bailing out? As in, the "unit" still acts as if it is a tank when really it's just a couple of guys with pistols. Might be something to look at.
Phil, I was just wondering, do you know what data was used to create the tank accuracy numbers for CMBN in the first place? If we knew what source you guys were working from, the whole thing might be clearer.
-
im wondering if the BN artillery uses pretty much the same accuracy stats as shockforce. has anyone compared the two?
I have not tried testing it, but it certainly "feels" the same. The strafing runs of the WW2 fighters are also rather similar to the A-10. I've looked at some WW2 guncam videos to compare and while the number of shots is roughly the same, the hits are way too accurate. In most videos of real attacks the aim goes left and right a lot, and stretches over a longer distance. The runs in CMBN are always perfect lines and dead on. All of this doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that they simply copy and pasted the artillery and air support radio chatter over from CMSF. That was just lazy.
During my "research" I stumbled upon this wonderful documentary of D-Day, I think you will all enjoy it!
-
Wow, I've been off to the side (like 10 yards) and slightly in front of a rifle firing, and the shockwave will still slap you in the face. That close I don't see how he could get off an accurate shot between the noise and concussive effects. Nevermind your ears ringing!
As a side note, did soldiers in WW2 have ear plugs or any protection at all? I have to imagine that a lot of them came home with hearing damage if not. I know the one time I went shooting my AR-15 and forgot the earmuffs my hearing was muffled for a couple of days. Scared me into never forgetting them again!
-
What's the point?
Keeping interest high in the game. Giving the hardcore fans something to talk about. Letting people see what you are offering to sell them. Shrouding everything in mystery and then having two or three big news updates a year is not a good way to keep customers interested.
-
They don't need a dedicated PR department to be able to communicate what they are up to. Have one look around the indie gaming scene and you will find dozens of 1-3 man teams who give out regular status updates, videos of new improvements, and so on. The industry has moved to a model of small developers being very open with their fans, and BFC is behind the curve.
A great example would be Naval War: Arctic Circle which is very much a niche wargame. They post a couple screenshots and a little preview every time they finish modeling a new unit, along with the occasional dev diary. Wouldn't you guys have preferred something like that instead of going months at a time with no new info at all?
Another thing, if all the hedges are thin enough for infantry to see right through and fire weapons, MGs, bazookas, etc. through, shouldn't they be able to wiggle through there in a reasonable amount of time?
, is that BFC should contract out Aris to do the textures from now on. After using his, the default ones are just..bleh
A plea to Battlefront
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
No offense to BFC, but I somehow doubt they will be able to compete with the
I'm thinking that ship sailed long ago.