Jump to content

Glubokii Boy

Members
  • Posts

    1,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Glubokii Boy

  1. If its Korea... A modern what-if would be preferable compared to a 1950 game imo... But let's get the eastern front finished first
  2. Having larger maps might sound like a simple and good idea to implement... But i'm not all that sure that it is that simple...it comes with some 'side-effects' ... To name a few... - TIME !!! Designing a detailed map at thoose sizes with the current mapeditor would be a mamuth task ...few would be willing to do it i fear. - AI...Will the current AI be able to handle maps of even greater size ? I belive that atleast things like a MOUNT-order for the AI would often be needed for the AI to be able to re-possition its troops in a timely fashion. Also a higher number of avaliable AI groups might be needed. Larger maps probably comes with a number of other requirements...but sure...If it can be easily implemented i'm all for it ... For H2H games on somewhat less derailed maps it will probably work well...
  3. Using ditch-lock, high and low walls, rocky/rubbel tiles and various buildings with removed/destroyed walls allows you to custom build something that might resemble a bombed out factory.. Atleast to some degree... It would be a good thing if individual floors could be removed from buildings in a simular fashion as walls can be Unfortunatelly not through...this kind of limits the custom ruin building possibilties.
  4. God damn ! First place... Well deserved...hopefully this will spark some intrest amongst the outsiders Nice to see...
  5. If any changes are made...I would much prefer to be able to asign off-map artillery to AI groups rather then having them on the map... Not the same thing...i know But that would be a nice change imo... To be able to use the 'area target trick' with all artillery assets...
  6. Well...personally i would not like to see this. And not a sound notification either. I don't think it is needed.. But as i understand it Steven482 have some trouble spotting these Things easily enough... What i ment was that simply Having a beep will not help all that much With spotting them...he would still need to scan the map to find them... He could do that even without a beep
  7. I don't think this Will happen. A simple beep will not really do much. To be more meeningful imo the recently spotted trenches and what not would also need to be flashing or something to make them easily recognicable. I belive this will be to much work on the part of BFC compared to the improvement gained. Are you in the habbit of rewiewing the map at different zoom levels at the start of each turn ? IIRC trenches are quite easily recognizable on the map when wiewed from high altitude...atleast at daytime..
  8. Yepp...that would be good. The floating incons are currently not used to their full potential imo... Many functions could be added to these... For example hotkeys to toggle colour coded indications for morale-state, fatigue, headcount, ammolevel etc... Would be kind of Nice
  9. Yes...That is the one downside to ditch trenches as far as i know. But like Freyberg and myself mentioned above...in some situations it does really not matter all that much if they are recognizable from far away... Sort of simulating that the enemy possition is known to the attacker...through areal recon, scouting Or previous fighting... If designing a scenario With rather large defensive trenchsystems it might look...a bit wierd to first see all the ditches and only then After a short while they Will be filled in with trenches... To avoid this the defending trenches could be picked as friendly trenches (from the attacking side)...This way they Will all be there from the get-go...
  10. I agree With this completally In situations where the defensive possitions are likely to be well scouted/known by the attacker... 'Ditch trenches' could/should be used. I do it myself...
  11. The 'ditch trenches' looks good and works well imo... The only downside is that they to some degree ruins FOW...
  12. Yeah...If the soldier actually opens fire the second time he takes a kneeling possition it is a quite nice feature but if he goes prone ones again...to shoot...and fail... Not quite as much...
  13. Is this something new ? I don't remember seing this before... Looks really wierd
  14. Yepp... Or Things like when two tankplatoons advance on an objective and The first one gets knocked out... The second one would have the capability to switching to a secondary path forward as opposed to now... Continue down the same path and in turn get knocked out in a simular way as the first one. That would be Nice!
  15. What the AI needs more then anything is some sort of branching/option- capability. The fact that the AI only has one 'programed' option avaliable at any given time is the most severe shortcomming of the AI in my opinion.
  16. If you like tactical (realistic) war games...Buying one of these titles will be the best value for money you will ever spend... The majority of players here have spend several 100 if not 1000 of hours playing these games... They are addictive ! Choose the theatre wich intrests you the most...the WW2 titles might be a bit more forgiving when it comes to making mistakes compared to the modern titles... ps...I guess the 100 dollar is a typo ?
  17. Being able to alter the basic gameplay technics/rules...NO...I don't think i would like that either... What i would like though (maybe not the same thing, i know ) Would be for BFC to allow outside developers to produce various OOBs/TOEs that could be plugged into a 'free/open' basegame... Not going to happen...i know. But i would like that...Simular to how DCS allows outside developers to release new aircrafts to their basic engine...
  18. Maybe BFC fears that a 'lightweight' release like this will have some sort of a negative impact on a future release of a true, full sized COMBAT MISSION FULGA GAP - basegame with additional modules... I don't think it will...The time frames could be set quite a bit appart. I would by both !
  19. A release like this could be a good test to see if selling a product without any playable content will work... If it is a succes maybe then it could be something to considder with regards to the future eastern front releases... releasing those games in two steps... step 1 - a TOE/OOB pack for selected period step 2 - a campaign, scenario pack
  20. Imo the QBs are a H2H gameplay option only... Or usable for running simple equipment/tactic tests either hotseat against yourself of vs the AI... Getting a good 'game' out of a QB battle vs the AI is very, very rare...The AI is lacking in to many ways to be able to handle it.. I would rather see that Marc Esras (i belive it is) attention is put to use on other things...SKIP THE AI PLANS for QB maps ! Spend the time designing a greater number of more detailed maps...sure...That would be great...But don't waste time on designing AI plans for the QB maps... It does not work very well ! This is by no means Marcs fault. It is a game-engine limitation !
  21. Yepp...That's the name i was looking for...thanks. It is one of the better AI-attacking scenarios i have played ...
  22. One misstake i did when playing a Great AI attack scenario...festungplatz podolzk Or something simular it was called iirc by PanzerMike... Was to get to 'gready'...not pulling back my troops from their defensive possitions until they got totally overwhelmed by the advancing enemy... I wanted to kill'em all On my second playthrough i had learnt to not remain stationary as long... But rather to pull back my guYs to New possitions before then got annilated... This allowed them to continue the fight from their New possition It worked much better ! This was a city fight...
×
×
  • Create New...