Jump to content

The Steppenwulf

Members
  • Content Count

    490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

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

Converted

  • Location
    Devon, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,445 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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:
  3. I consider a bunker in a building to be a workaround too.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. The game is set in 2008 and things have changed quite a lot since then due to two subsequent defence reviews. So what applies now to British formation and doctrine does not apply to 2008. Since there wasn't as much information on the web in 2008 as now, this makes it harder to pin accurate info down and discern it from the situation either after or before the reviews, and in other cases, whether the reviews had a change in regard to some things (not everything has changed). In short it's a bit of minefield! Because of reasons above, I reckon UK Army personnel serving 2006- 2008 will have a
  9. No worries! It's as well you mentioned vassal in your earlier posts. That's the bit that made me sit up and take a real interest.
  10. I did a snapshot examination of what vassal could do and how it might integrate CM battles. My conclusion is that vassal is well suited to the development of an operational game. How an operational campaign works though is a fundamental question. I've thought about this once before when I first ever considered how it would be done. I don't think there's any way to avoid this fundamental question and I reckon if you start a project like this it's worth working this bit out first, or else you can get tied up in game design knots. So here's my synopsis... a) Is it a campaign game that mon
  11. Anyone on this thread looking for an opponent and would like to play Normandy please hmu. I prefer to play Wehrmacht and medium to large scenario battles, all modules owned. I prefer an opponent who has CM helper for mutual convenience. Hope this doesn't come across as too demanding, I will prove otherwise as a fair and generous spirited opponent. My turn rate is minimum 1 move a day (frequently 2), but I'm relaxed about the pace of returns, as long as there is commitment to finish the game and not leave it hanging as some do. hmu
  12. 21st Century aircraft are the perfect weapons for waging limited warfare from distance and have plenty of future development still in them - in both respects they trump fighting vehicles. UK has an aircraft capability deficit. UK is also in need of half a dozen fast, high tech patrol vessels to patrol and protect its waters post Brexit. It's about balance of priorities and utility and the real politick of future conflict.
  13. I agree that this is the issue with QB's. I'm one of those players who wants something between the scenario and the QB battle experience, but why I avoid QBs. I suspect I am not alone in this. As pointed out by another contributor, scenarios can be replayed for the intellectual challenge. This is exactly where I am. The way I see it is that this experience can be achieved by varying forces and how these forces are used - but replay of the the actual map and terrain is fine. This can only be served adequately by playing H2H (for Ian's reasons indicated), but currently H2H scenario gaming doe
  14. I'm happy to be involved to some extent or other. My work commitments peak and trough so how much time I have will vary. Perhaps the best place to start is producing a list of basic questions about game design that are needed to brainstorm? For example, do you use hexes, or some other system for dividing up the map? Implications of this governing rules for movement? Implementing rules for line of sight (I note that ADC2 already has los built in)? Indeed do you need los if a bespoke recon rules system is developed (which appeals more to me but requires some imaginative thinking)? Methods fo
×
×
  • Create New...