A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
I've had *one* since the patch. BF might have over-reacted to the complaints and gone too far the other way.
Hee, hee. No one can win
I actually thing they have done quite well. Becoming immobilized is not impossible with the 1.1 patch but you will see it less in dry good conditions. That was the issue before tanks would bog and become immobilized on dry flat terrain. They still get stuck in the mud and fords and when the ground conditions are soggy. The fixed two things - it is now much less likely to end up with an immobilized tank in open, flat, dry ground and driving near the road edge is no longer the most dangerous place to drive a tank.
-
They bought island. Now they need yachts...
How else are they going to get to their island
-
You don't need to install the game, it's enough if you just copy the game folder to another location and upgrade it.
Oooo nice - I'll try that next time. I kept running the install every time.
-
Time to add to your sig line Mord:D
-
Upgrades do offer us the opportunity to invest more in a feature sooner because it has a potentially bigger audience than if it were limited to one game now and then more games in the future. <snip>
We have no immediate plans for multi-multi-player. There's a lot of deep discussions about this in the Normandy and Shock Force forums for those who are up for a bit of research. In theory we would like to do it, in reality it's a huge investment and we're not so sure about the return.<snip>
See what Steve did there. Gave "co player" supporters hope and then took it away but the hope still hangs around there in the back of our minds.
Well answered:)
-
I am certainly not an official source - just a happy customer. But I think I get where BFC is going so lets see if I can answer your questions and get it right.
Just a quickie regarding packs. As someone who plays almost exclusively multiplayer, do all of my opponents have to own the same packs to play?A bit of yes and no here. Both opponents will need to be playing the same version of the game. You both need 1.01 or 1.1 to play (I currently have both of those installed on my machine since I still have a game going on the 1.01 patch). Packs will not be much different from modules in terms of inter-play.
Consider the CW module: CW needs the base game patched to 1.1 to work. But I can still play against an opponent who only has the CMBN base game (patched to 1.1 though) as long as we stick to scenarios that are designed with the base game. Same will happen for packs.
Consider a hypothetical future where there is a Funnies Pack that ships next. If you have CW installed and I have CW plus the Funnies Pack we can play as long as we stick to scenarios that were designed with the base game or the CW module.
The question I have left is will the game be coded to recognize what version is the minimum needed? By that I mean if I have the CW plus funnies pack and I design a scenario will the game be smart enough to indicate that the scenario is playable with the CW version of the game as long as I don't include units only available in the funnies game or will it just flag it as needing the funnies pack if I have that pack installed when I create the scenario?
NOTE: The above is a hypothetical future my made up pack is not real I just used it as an example.
I can see this all getting very confusing in the style of some other games out there that can almost be unplayable due to the amount of Mods available or differing versions.Thankfully Mods for this game are totally orthogonal (love that word) - separate from the features so Mods will not cause confusion.
Will there still be patches to games or will this method be replaced with an upgrade only?Patches are for bug fixes upgrades are for new features. Patches are *not* going away anytime soon - cause neither are bugs.
-
Makes sense. All the Canadians I've met sound American.
Oddly though, they always seemed to be irked when I mentioned that. Dunno why
LOL - I agree we do sound like many Americans. It is my American friends that think I sound funny. I still do not hear it:)
-
With the announcement of CMFI and the following upgrade to 2.0 BFC will have implemented half of my top priority list of features. After I post this I am going to edit my sig line so for posterity here is what my sig looked like before today.
Prioritized wish list: 1) Image overlay in the map editor, 2) Head to Head Campaigns, 3) Cover Armor Arc, 4) Command line support (here is my proposal)Played in: The Farm
Number 1 and 3 are coming soon. Thanks BFC I am really looking forward to the new release. But in the mean time I am sure having fun with the existing game.
Thanks again.
Ian
-
They do pick their weapons up and rejoin the fight. I just rescued a scout team that gave up just before back up arrived. Once their mates had pushed the Germans back and joined them they put their arms down and returned to normal. Broken, but active again.
-
No it is not possible for users to add custom armies to the game. There have been mod work done to make current models in the game look like they are from other armies. Look a the recent threads talking about mods to create Pacific theater battles.
-
Nope, with the CW module the pre-order people got access to the download before the rest of us. Initially the word was it would be days before they opened it up to everyone. It was painful. In the end it did not take days but...
-
Let me start by saying I am very happy to see your announcement and I plan to order ASAP. So here is my request.
Make it possible to pre-order download only. Please.
I have no desire to have anything mailed nor do I need CDs but I do want to play the game as soon as it is ready to go. When the CW module was released only those who pre-ordered could download right away. Which is fair enough - they paid money for the privilege. The thing is *I* want to pay money for the privilege but I do not want anything mailed to me. So, BFC while there is still time please make it possible to pre-order download only.
-
2. Games already in progress will need to be finished up before Upgrading. If a multiplayer game is in progress that will need to be finished. Players using different versions also won't work because the code expects the same version to be present on the other side. To do otherwise would involve a ton of work and testing. For example, Player A has CMBN 2.0 and Player B has v1.20. If they play a RealTime TCP/IP game, what happens when Player A hits the Pause button that Player B doesn't have? The coding and testing time to identify all potential "gotchas" like this is just not economically viable.
I presume that you can have the upgraded CMBN 2.0 along side an install of CMBN 1.01 and an install of the patched version 1.1 (with the CW module) such that you can start which ever one you want.
This is how you can continue to play your on going CMBN PBEM games and start playing around with the upgrade features too. I currently have CMBN:CW (1.1) and CMBN 1.01 sitting on my hard drive. I have one game going in the 1.01 version and several in the 1.1 version some CW related and some not.
That way you never have to choose between playing your ongoing commitments and playing with the new stuff.
-
Good question. Something like flame throwing tanks will need code support to work as well as the TO&E/Units to use them. If it goes into an Upgrade and you Upgrade a game without such units, the feature isn't going to do anything for you right then and there. But it will be all ready for a future Module that has units that require those features.
Upgrades will never contain content such as units, terrain, etc. Only game related stuff.
Awesome stuff. Fully modular, upgradable, extendable and backwards compatible - it is the holly grail of programming. Nicely done!
Looks to me like you guys have made the right decisions about separating engine from content and after a lot of work are poised to take full advantage. My hat's off to you.
-
I'm sobbing like a fricking moron at a sappy movie.
LOL me to - sniff.
I am sure we will hear from the usual suspects how BFC just inflicted all this financial hardship on their customer base by releasing too much stuff... heh heh hehYeah the money is an issue but money is just money. I am already having trouble finding enough time to play CMBN as it is. If I have Itally, Eastern Front and a modern war to play with to I'll never sleep
-
Perhaps one of your opponents who is playing the German side can give it a try.
LOL - I am sure they will be glad to.
-
by having the team run across the tank or near it it stops them from making a full stop at an action point - theyre constantly moving.
Thanks @womble and @sublime - I "get it" now. I'll have to find an opportunity to try it. I do not have any games going right now where I am playing the Germans where this might come up.
-
Agreed, thanks Bimmer. I was eliminated in the first round but I still had fun and would do it again any time.
I am glad that in the end the person that eliminated me (@eniced73) has gone deep in the tournament. I can console my self with the fact that I was beaten by a clearly excellent player.
-
I believe womble came up with the idea originally, but I used to end move orders at the location I wanted the team to fire. it was a bad idea, now I order them to quick or move fast past the location I want them to fire (unless they ambushing, laying in wait) because the team will run and the faust guy will stop and fire anyways. huge difference using that.
Interesting I have to admit I do not "get" this. In what situation can you do this? When running from cover to a flanking or rear position to the enemy tank?
How does this work? What difference does it make if I give the order end point to the AS I want them to fire from or the AS one square closer to the target? I thought they would not setup to fire until they stopped moving and moving an additional 8m would mean more time until they fire.
I hope someone can shed some light on how this works.
-
The Stug III's gun is really low - it sticks out of the front of the hull. They have a great profile. In Carbide Carbide I moved my Stug to various firing positions and the most of the time I had no trouble getting it to be able to fire where I wanted. I had about the same amount of difficulty as I did with the PzIVs - which is to say very little.
-
this in the briefing: "Vierville Draw was surrounded by steep bluffs impassable to vehicles; thus, the narrow lane that split the bluffs was an immediate objective beacuse it was a passage way for vehicles coming off the beach." C'mon! follow directions!
Well look at that - clearly I did not study my briefing very well.
-
Oh yeah I am amazed that I still have an operational tank. Given the pounding one has taken and the fact that another was taken out by AT guns pretty much right away. Didn't we start with four tanks? My memory kinda sucks but I though there were four.
-
I'm glad you are having trouble. you're not supposed to drive your tank up the bluff:D:D
that's why you need the draw
LOL fair enough. I have to say though since the game does not give me feedback that the bluff is un-scalable by a Sherman I like @Broadsword56's idea of putting enough heavy forest on the slope that a player can tell their is no way up.
This is going to suck for the Rangers. The engineers already know they are on their own but the Rangers thought they had tank support:)
IMHO the game should be telling me I cannot have a vehicle drive up that slope. A tank commander should be able to look at a slope and say "There is no way" or "Yep no problem" - for the most part. I realize there would be some ground close to the max traversable slope where the TC could make the wrong choice but hey the game already tells me if I can and cannot go over marsh or heavy forest. Having said that I rather doubt that this would rank high on the "fix list" since it does not come up very often.
-
That is the conclusion I am coming to as well. So the question then becomes how can I tell what slope the tank can go up? How can I tell it cannot make grade. The game is not giving me feedback to indicate it cannot climb.
Tonight I'll re-plot my way points perhaps just one or two close to the tank and see what happens but does anyone have any suggestions for how to determine if a tank can traverse a slope or not in game?
Triggers
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Yuck, no one wants triggers for that. And if any one says different I spit on them putooie.
You are of course correct, if they design triggers to do bad things then playing the game could be ruined. But, come on, this is Steve we are talking about, he would never create a feature that would be bad like that.
We just want the AI to have the ability to react to a human attack by allowing them to muse a mobile reserve effectively. Or reposition a static defense when one of its flanks collapse.