Wiggum15
-
Posts
537 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Everything posted by Wiggum15
-
Thats correct but BFC has shown no interest in actually improving the engine or fixing fundamental flaws. They were the ones who started the whole "DLC after DLC" thing. They could have gone the other way which most likely would mean less sales/income for a year or two. But maybe the CMx2 engine can not be "fixed" anyway and BFC knows that, thats why they choose to release texture/scenario packs. I see no initiative from them like a kickstarter campaign for a new engine "CMx3". Then they could make money while still in development through early access.
-
Please tell me, what game changing or major features got added since SF ? Target Armor Arc ? (A basic CMx1 feature) ? Tank riders (a CMx1 feature and only available in RT) ? Flame weapons (a CMx1 feature and only available in RT) ? Hit decals (more of a graphic enhancement) ? AA fire ?
-
And here i disagree. The game has by no means "significantly" evolved since 2007. All we got are bug fixes, some additional but minor features and balance tweaks. After all this discussion here i did a test: I showed a friend (ordinary hobby gamer, 33 years old) SF and then CMBS (he first thought CMBS was a mod for SF or the other way around). I asked him what he thinks how many "updates" are between both titles. His answer was "maybe 2 or three". Then i told him that between both games are no less then 8 years...he was like WTF really...?! - 8 years and we still have no infantry formations (hail to the conga line) - 8 years and the map still floats in nirvana - 8 years and vehicles still dont know what a road is - 8 years and the TacAI is still as bad - 8 years and we still do not have SOP's for the action phase - 8 years and we still have the same graphic glitches - 8 years and still no flares or NV mode for night combat - 8 years and the enemy halftruck still sits there while my mortars shoot at it till its finally hit - 8 years and the UI is still the same (which is not a good thing) - 8 years and still no TCP/IP Multiplayer ...
-
There is NO wargame that makes me 100% happy, they all have flaws. But...i have a special love for CM and cant accept the fact that it has been in a standstill since 8 years now. CMx1 was great, i remember playing the tutorial mission the first time and i was blown away. CMAK and OFP made me a wargame fan and got me interested in the military (iam active infantry soldier since many years) ! I bought CMx2 and was disappointed but saw the potential...and now 8 years later and its still the same flaws and shortcomings... So many "new" games and all just seem like a texture mod with some new units.
-
...and what should i achieve with that ? I wrote PM's to Steve and ChrisND an never got a response. Helpdesk is more for support and not to discuss the game...thats something that belongs into the forums.
-
Look, and THAT is the flawed attitude you guys have. Someone complains about CMx2 or criticize it or BFC. Your reaction -> "Play another game" or "Develop your own game" No wonder BFC did not move forward in the last 7 years, you guys deserve CMx2 as it is...stop being rude to everyone who does criticize CMx2 or BFC !
-
I can not post them here but have sent you a PM.
-
@ c3k Oh come on. You argument is the same as sburke's. - BFC needs more time Really ?! 8 Years should be enough to work on the basic CMx2 flaws and shortcomings and add game changing new features. - BFC has no money If i look at what some Indie Devs are pulling of at the moment i cant let that count - BFC is a small team There is another small wargame developing team from Kharkov, Ukraine...just look at what they are able to do ! - The game is the best tactical battle simulator anyway Actually i would say no it is not. And i think sooner then later BFC will realize that they got much to comfortable in their little warm niche.
-
I know CMx2 uses only one CPU core. Thats entirely BFC's fault and if a upgrade to multi core support is not possible for CMx2 at least for Cmx3 its a must have. Anyway, even on a single core i think BFC could optimize the code/engine to run smoother even with added features. CMx2 as a engine is long past its date of expiry. BFC should already be in development of a new engine but i doubt they are. If they cant afford working on a new engine...what about kickstarter or Steam early Access...so many possibilitys... But it looks like they use all avaiable manpower for "new" after "new" CMx2 games.
-
Maybe these are "unsupported proclamation"...as "unsupported" as your assumption that it was tons of work to include these "features". Actually i like the game, but dont like the lack of progress and BFC's business model...ever considered that ?! For you, everyone who does not love the game and says "WOW, GREAT" to everything BFC does and releases is a sad troll who does have no clue how much hard work (should we all pity BFC...) they put into these games. Someone who loves a company and cheers everything they do is usually called a fanboy, now i dont say you are one but many here at the forum are very very close... I most likely will buy the Bulge game anyway...why you ask ? Because i dont have to care about 55$, simple as that. If they would release a massive improved CMx3 engine i would pay 150$ for it ! I want BFC to move forward, you want them to sit in a corner selling the same game with a new varnishing forever. Iam ranting about CMx2 since 2007 and i will carry on because to improve they need guys like me who DONT cheer them like 14 year old cheerleaders. Oh, and i know they dont care about the forum "troll" with his "rants"...but they are ignoring their cheerleaders too so i can live with that.
-
...no. The discussion about the lack of progress, the recycling and pricing began when someone pointed out that: "[...]all T-64/72/90 hulls come from the original T-72s from Shock Force"
-
Yeah, with the current badly optimized engine my "vaunted computer would fry or more likely just simply hang". Stop telling everybody about those "magic" AI process thats soooooo demanding on your CPU and all those bullets pew...luckely i can play ArmA3 with high setting with 40 FPS... If i shoot mortar rounds at a enemy APC it will just sit there as long as it is not hit...although there are impacts in 25m distance... Vehicles are to stupid to use roads and pathfinding is horrible...is that also part of the "magic" AI process thats so demanding ? I know and i was one of those guys who screamed for FOW trenches. But what we got is way worse...the current representation of trenches and foxholes as ugly "units" is awful. A workaround due to engine limitations...nothing more. - drones Invisible, maybe just a F16 with another sound file, i cant be to much work if you have aircraft fire already modeled ingame - mgs fire random numbers of bullets now Believe it or not, for me thats just a minor change, something a coder does in one or two hours. - precision artillery is just a shell without to much dispersion, i doubt that this was much work... - anti air craft fire Its just something firing into the air, planes are invisible so it could be as simple as a randomly generated number. If that number is >x then the plane was hit...minor change - editor improvements Using the editor is still a pain in the a**. But yeah at least they tried to improve it a bit. But still its not user friendly or straightforward. - mg fire being more effective in general but most speficially against infantry. Again, just change a few variables, do some testing and you have it...a minor improvement that is a basic thing to include into a patch - In door firing of rocket weapons Again, most likely just a small code change and some testing, minor change Like: If _weapon == "RPG" then {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = false} else {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = true} - flame weapons Only avaiable in RT, this was already present in CMx1 The Bulge game will use the same germans (+ a few new tanks and textures) like we already have in CMBN and CMRT. The Bulge game will use the "flat" snow tile and weather "graphic effects" from CMFI The Bulge game will use the US forces we already have in CMBN and its addons (+ a few new tanks and textures) The Bulge game will have the flame weapons and tank riders from RT The Bulge game will have mostly the same TO&E as CMBN with some additions and changes The Bulge game will have new scenarios Please tell me, from your perspective, what the big "new" feature of the next full price CMx2 game ?
-
If you would ask me about the improvements since SF (2007) the only thing i can think of is the "Target Armor Arc". Other then that...puh i would need some time to come up with another one...oh wait "AI triggers" ! So i can think of 2 improvements since SF...and some things have even gone worse like the foxholes and trenches !
-
Ha ! Why should my PC not be able to run the game ? My PC plays GTAV, GTOS, SABOW and Ryse in high to max setting...and my PC is more then 2 years old and i paid less then 600$ ! Do you try to suggest that BFC cant code a good performance (or even average) engine ? ?? I consider the changes in your link "mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like [...]" ! Do you understand what i say ? I should finance BFC ? Why ? I always thought BFC was a commercial company selling games for $$ and not some kind of free-time modding team ?! ...eh, no.
-
If you ask me, these are mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like a new infantry movement system, SOPs, UI overhaul, a better editor, smaller action spots a reworked building and cover system, waypoints and more triggers for the AI, MOUT commands, better target arcs, more self preservation for the AI, overhauled tax Ai...
-
Are I able to discuss all these things (pathfinding for example) without the "I don't see a issue here" and "BFC has other things to do" people... No. With the insane lack of critics here on the forums and the huge number of Hardcore BFC fans you need guys like me.
-
So You agree worth me that many things did not change since SF ? You agree with me that there are tons of things that should be addressed since 2007 like graphic issues, the infantry movement, vehicle pathfinding ? Will you spent another 55$ on the next texture and TO&E pack with the same old basic issues ?
-
... And that's my whole point. You talk about how CM is "continuing to develop" but I and many others don't see that. CM is in a standstill since 2007. They fixed bugs and added minor features but the big issues and shortcomings are still there...just look at the infantry movement ! Or the awful "floating in nirvana" map. 8 years and still, CMBS feels like the 2007 SF just with a 55$ texture mod.
-
The "just don't buy it" argument is just bad. That's no valid point.
-
Reusing old models is ok. But what BFC does is just "cheap". Just look at the terrain, its the same for CMBN, CMRT and CMBS. The infantry movement is the same since 2007 and never got improved. They recycled the Germans from CMBN in RT (1944 again) and will do it in the bulge game (1944 again). The winter terrain will be the same as in CMFI... And don't get me started about the lack of new features or engine improvements since 2007. BFC sells texture and scenario packs as full price games, some think that's acceptable some don't.
-
I would Say that 90% of CMBS comes from SF and 90% of all other WW2 titles comes from CMBN... It's called recycling old stuff for a new full price game.
-
No fear of dying in ARMA ? You clearly never played ARMA... CMx2 is a great game but has not moved on since 2007. Things BFC sells as "engine updates" would be just small free updates for other devs. Things BFC sells as a "new" full price game would be a 20$ DLC for other devs. BFC got stuck in their own niche and cant move forward. And as long as they make enough money with CMx2 there is no reason for them to move a inch.
-
I know BFC hates it if you mention other wargames on their forums, i just hope they dont overreact. And to my defense, i was not the one who brought APOS to the discussion.
-
I would doubt that. I did not want to mention APOS (GTOS) but if you ask me it does several things better then CM, it has better graphics, is cheaper, more comprehensive and has better support in terms of feature updates.
-
Only on the BFC forums can a totally legitimate post about lack of progress since 2007 turn into a discussion about Space Lobsters...
