Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Posts

    2,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by IICptMillerII

  1. Sburke already nailed it on the head. The exact opposite of what you said is happening is actually happening. Not only have CM sales increased, but the return of previous customers (as in, people who bought one CM game and then come back and get another) have increased as well. Sounds to me like BFC is doing quite well. They aren't losing customers, they're growing. This is the key phrase of your entire argument. Its your opinion. Its also wrong.
  2. I would rather see a module for Black Sea that adds the VDV, and adds new vehicles/formations to the US and UKR forces. Or, I would rather see a new expansion to CMSF2 that adds even more content. Or, I would like to see a new game that covers 1950 Korea. Or what I really hope for is a game that covers a 1980s Cold War gone hot scenario. My point being, I would rather see the devs working on new/more content than a small features such as an increased difficulty setting. I have a different list of things I want BFC to do than you. Most people here have different ideas of what they want done. If BFC tried to deliver on every wishlist item of everyone on the forums, they would never get anything done. Just because you want something added doesn't mean everyone does.
  3. I don't mind the new ROF for the various automatic rifles. I think they're more realistic. The BAR was never fired on its fast ROF fire mode as it was simply too uncontrollable. The fact is, the Bren and BAR are not machine guns, they're automatic rifles. Even with bipods and the capability of fully automatic fire, their extremely limited ammo capacity of 20 or 30 rounds makes it impractical to fire bursts at targets over 150 meters. For that you need a belt fed machine gun. The MG34/42 will always outclass them as it was a squad based rapidly deployable belt fed machine gun. The BAR/Bren simply cannot compete.
  4. I agree that the bug is frustrating. I'm one of the people who have downgraded back to v3 on most of my CM games because I find the bug to be gamebreaking for me. The reason we haven't seen a patch yet is because patching these games is not easy. It takes a lot of time and effort, and then must be thoroughly tested before it can be released, and thats per title. So with a bug like this that affects all the games, its going to take a while to get a patch up. The good news is that BFC knows about the bug, and its their top priority to fix. We just have to be patient for the fix. I've guessed before that we might see a patch around the time that CMSF2 comes out. To me, it seems like that would be the logical time for a patch because they will have the code 'open' so to speak in order to upgrade CMSF. To me, that seems like the time to work in a fix to the new engine, when they're applying it to CMSF. Thats pure speculation on my part, and likely may not be the case mind you.
  5. I agree, I would love to see co-op capability added to the game, even if at first it was just co-op against the AI. However I remember Steve saying that this is one of those things that isn't worth the amount of time and effort required to get it into the game in the near future. Hopefully we will eventually see it, but it won't be anytime soon. As to the persistent map damage, I too would love to see this feature. With it, you could essentially improv campaigns on the fly, among the many other things people have already mentioned. However, Steve did say in his post that persistent map damage is a feature they have shelved, as in they aren't planning on doing it anytime soon. Again, hopefully in the future it will make its way into the game, but that probably wont be for a while.
  6. Fair points. I'm very excited for CMSF2, and I'm eager to see how differently some of the scenarios play out with the new surrender mechanic. I think we are going to see a lot fewer "missing" Syrians this time around. In the TF Thunder campaign, in many of the missions (especially the first) its not uncommon to see more missing Syrians than killed/wounded. Thats likely going to change.
  7. Steve meant that it will be on par feature wise to CMBS (the other modern CM game) but that it will be in a different setting, Syria. Same features, different locations.
  8. In the thread linked below Steve says that the issue is the top priority to fix in an upcoming patch: Check number 3 specifically.
  9. In reality there are other ways to knock down walls. Sledge hammers, vehicles, sheer brute force, improvised battering rams, etc. In game, you can usually get away with moving from house to house even if you don't have demo charges. You just have to be a bit more careful, and may have to cross one or two more LDA's. Plus, I would argue that when you have them, demo charges are in a much greater supply than the handful of non-replenish-able smoke grenades that come with the standard loadout.
  10. My feedback on your street fighting video: The Army learned in WWII to avoid streets at all costs. Instead of moving through/down/along streets, they found that moving through buildings was much safer and more secure. In fact, they did this to the point where they only moved from building to building, and instead of using roads, they simply blew holes through adjacent buildings. This was called 'mouse holing.' A lot of this was learned the hard way through city fighting, specifically around the French town of Brest. It was further reinforced while fighting through Aachen later in the war. In the scenario in your videos, I would have moved through the buildings, avoiding the street as much as possible. Especially considering the enemy machine gun is in a position to pour enfilading fire down the street. Even with adequate smoke cover I would still opt to go from building to building. If you want a source where you can read more about US Army tactics in urban warfare in WWII, then I highly recommend Closing with the Enemy by Michael Doubler.
  11. I actually have a question/concern about this, albeit a minor one. Currently in CMSF1, all that is required for a unit to route is a shattered morale state. So for example, you can force a bunch of enemy conscripts with poor morale in a trench to route just by dumping artillery on them and causing some casualties. However, with the new surrender mechanic, in order for enemy units to surrender, friendly units must be close to them, within a few action squares. All the same morale degradation still applies, but with the added factor of proximity to the opposing force. While I prefer the visual effect with the newer surrender system, I like the route system as a whole more. The reason being is I think it better depicts an enemy who has thrown in the towel. They will still route even though there aren't opposing forces close to them, which I think is more realistic. At the very least, I think it will be interesting to see how fights play out differently in CMSF2 due to this. Instead of being able to cause enemy conscripts to route with long range fires, you will have to physically close with them. That will give the enemy a possible chance to recover and maybe get an extra shot or two off, among other things. What are other peoples thoughts on this?
  12. Ahh ok so it was on map artillery. This explains why you didn't see the targeted infantry flee from their trenches. If they were off map then the targeted infantry would have fled. I understand that the FO was calling in an indirect fire mission with the assets. The bug is only triggered if the artillery assets are off map. At least that is what all the testing done thus far indicates. I heard! Very glad to know that its now a known issue and will be addressed with the first patch. Hopefully that patch comes sooner rather than later.
  13. I believe what Bulletpoint is referring to here is what triggers the bug. On map mortars and off map mortars are both indirect fire. However, on map mortar fire does not cause infantry to flee their trenches, whereas off map mortar fire does. In your video, are the mortars on or off map? I'm assuming they are on map based on the fact that the targeted infantry did not break and flee from the barrage. If they were off map, can you please send me the file of the mission you used for making the video? I'm curious to see for myself if the infantry flee from the fortifications. In my testing, regardless of veterancy/morale, or the type of off map artillery, the TacAI always chooses to flee.
  14. Was wondering, are there any plans to add more features to the 3D preview part of the editor? For example placing buildings and other features (roads, terrain, etc) in this mode? I find one of the more tedious parts of using the editor is having to constantly go back and forth between the 2D map where I place everything, and the 3D view to look and see if it all looks right. Just being able to do that stuff in 3D would streamline the whole process and make it all much easier in my opinion. If there are no plans to do this, its not the end of the world. The fact that CM has a comprehensive editor as is is infinitely better than not having one at all.
  15. If I had to hazard a guess, it would have something to do with the new spacing mechanic. Just a guess though.
  16. ??? Literally the entire point of foxholes and trenches is that it protects infantry from direct fire, and fires in general, to include shrapnel from falling artillery. The best way to defeat these types of fortifications (aside from clearing them with your own infantry) is by using high angle of attack weapons, such as mortars. The whole reason modern armies such as Russia and the US are investing so much in airburst ammunition is for this reason. It gives direct fire weapons the same effect on target as high angle of attack weapons.
  17. Quick update for those who haven't seen yet; Steve has said that they are aware of the bug and it is a top priority to fix. What he said in full can be viewed on the new forum section, linked here for convenience: Good news!
  18. I agree. I would like a command that would essentially be a trigger for the individual unit. Lets say you have a bazooka team in a house. You give it a fall back waypoint (just a move order somewhere) and then hit the 'shoot and scoot' command. What the command would do is keep the team in place until they fire the bazooka. Once they've fired, they fall back along the movement point plotted. You could obviously couple the command with target arcs and target commands as well. In essence it would be a glorified pause command, just without the guesswork of timing on the part of the player. Just an idea, but I think it would be very helpful for many different units. Tanks, anti-tank infantry, and other things such as snipers/scouts, and other soft assets that you want to preform a quick hit and run.
  19. Excellent! Beyond overjoyed from hearing this! Knowing this, I will definitely be buying all the new modules and CMSF2 when they are released. With the bug, I was hesitant to buy more content, as right now I find 3.0 much more enjoyable to play. Thanks for the update! Very much looking forward to all the upcoming releases!
  20. Thanks for the update! Great to hear that everything is proceeding and that we can expect some new toys relatively soon. Any news about tweaks to the current 4.0 upgrade, regarding AI behavior?
×
×
  • Create New...