Jump to content

The Steppenwulf

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Steppenwulf last won the day on March 20 2019

The Steppenwulf had the most liked content!

About The Steppenwulf

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Devon, UK
  • Interests
    CM:Battle for Normandy, CM:Black Sea, CM Final Blitz


  • Location
    Devon, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,512 profile views
  1. That's interesting and challenges my understanding. I've done some testing which led to me to the opposite conclusion, but certainly in light of your test there, it does look like you are right. Thanks for posting!
  2. I have no evidence in my experience of extensively experimenting with FOs that this is indeed the case. They are eye candy, nothing more.
  3. Just to be clear, Cold war will not have any new features it states on the main BF page that it's game engine 4. From the article posted: Our intention is to add a number of other new features that enhance gameplay,” Grammont said in an email. “What these features are in detail I can not say because even I don’t know. The inference I draw from this, is that any feature upgrade has not actually really been considered. I believe if it had, Steve would already know more. Consider also, it would be a bad marketing move for 2021 module releases to snuff out the 'future features' candle
  4. Why does the UK need to 'remedy enforcing VAT on domestic products'? That is not the case! But anyway... from the linked article: A government spokesperson said: "The new VAT model ensures goods from EU and non-EU countries are treated in the same way and that UK businesses are not disadvantaged by competition from VAT-free imports. The net effect of the new VAT model is that the UK consumer will be discouraged from making purchases outside the UK. Do you agree? The word protectionism is not so narrowly defined as merely imposition of a tariff or ch
  5. Yep I think that's a interesting 'what if' question too, but as I say the Govt don't care about the actual cost (directly to the British taxpayer in increased HMRC overheads, or at the feet of the consumer with inflated costs on software/digital products) when there is a matter of political expediency at the heart of this particular venture.
  6. ^ I don't think any of what you've written there is really correct. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with international trade agreements. The UK Govt is merely trying to close an hitherto advantage enjoyed by non UK/EU traders who've been dodging paying VAT to HMRC. Whether it proves cost effective is one question. The other is - as I have pointed out - there is almost certainly a deeper political motive. How will the UK voter evaluate new 'global Britain' come the next UK election? Demonstrating that it has been a success for UK trade (esp trade balance) is everything to the Govt th
  7. Whilst the raw intention of this policy is to ensure the UK collects all due VAT, which clearly wasn't happening before (and is correct). It seems to me that there is a political motive on the part of the UK Govt by enacting this at the point of Brexit. The whole idea being essentially protectionist by taking away an advantage some imported goods were enjoying. That is consistent with the whole political nature of the Brexit venture - ultimately to prove that the UK is somehow better off as a result (and that is almost certainly not going to prove to be the case). So this is really the big
  8. I'd suggest in general it allows producer/publishers to generate some return on the product prior to actual release. Given blockbuster games esp there is enormous overhead with no return on the product until release. That could be 2/3 years of staff salaries with absolutely nothing to show for it. For same cash-flow reasons, it could also offer some flexibility (from publisher to developer) with the release window by extending some staff contracts so they can squash bugs/complete features/add polish etc.. Thirdly perhaps the larger publishers can get a picture from pre release orders w
  9. Speculatively, it would not surprise me if a detailed data output tool feature was implemented for the MoD version (given the requirement for post evaluation & analysis in mil training exercises). Does not mean the community will get it though - rather sounds like the very thing Steve refers to in his OP:
  10. I consider a bunker in a building to be a workaround too.
  11. Agreed. I think proper reinforced buildings (and some applicable house models to depict it) have been requested by some members of the community for a good few many years since now. It's especially relevant given the Berlin module, but the Soviets implemented strongholds when they were on the defensive in the war also. Putting foxholes half-in buildings as a work around (or as game compensation), really doesn't cut it in terms of immersion for me.
  12. I wasn't thinking anything as far ahead as this. More like some improved animations on house storming such as infantry backs to walls and stand up grenade throws etc.. I'm not a Company of Heroes player in particular, but house fighting is much more immersive for these reasons in that game. More advanced version of this might move to include a specific house assault action function for carrying out a building assault - the infantry then carrying out a scripted procedure with set of animations. Specific assault function would get away from the present standard movements (slow, hunt, quick)
  13. Thanks for the update on what lies ahead this year for BF and CM. I'm still hoping that we might yet be gifted with the capability for head to head campaigns for PBEM. Not a feature for the casual scenario player but many long term CM players have regular gaming opponents and playing a series of linked battles with carried over casualties would spice up CM no end. Second on my wish list has always been persistent battlefields, would enhance those H2H campaign games even more. In my view modelling of street and house to house fighting is the least immersive in CM; given the new module
  14. Of course... this and the game potentially descending into farce with opponents not agreeing on what mod versions/stats to use. I think also, Bf prefer to restrict modding capability because of the potential for cheating. It's a pandoras box that's just best not opened, think of the reputational damage and impact on the marketing value of the game - I think that's a wise decision on their part, I wouldn't risk my product (and livelihood) for that! Yup, It's clear that Bf apply the most reliable information that they've seen to model performance and attributes. That doesn't mean it
  • Create New...