Camarilabot
-
Posts
4 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Camarilabot
-
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Speaking from a game developer standpoint, our customers do not want us to get distracted by H2H optimized battles for two reasons:
1. H2H play is used by a minority of our total customer base. Any unnecessary diversion of resources away from single player, therefore, is counter productive.
2. H2H play optimization means the scenario can only be played by one force type, yet a large chunk of our customer base prefers to play as only one side. So if we include 5 scenarios only playable from the Blue side, then we're going to need 5 scenarios only playable from the Red side to balance it out. Then customers will complain that the other side has the "better" scenarios and why can't they play them from their preferred side.
Oh yes, this could get rather "interesting" rather quickly post release
Steve
but, as far as i know, one H2H player is worth like 33 lesser men who play single player, therefore my statistic has shown that H2H players are in a decent majority, 69% vs 31%
-
improved textures, slightly at least
dissapointed with the trees but it could work
same engine problems that we had in cmbn v1, 89.99% of them
very good atmosphere
interesting units, game do feel different from cmbn,even with 80% of the vehicles being exactly same models, did not expect that
nice new flames
on another hand, old tracers and sounds are boring
-
6 hours ago, SgtHatred said:
Been too busy playing to post, but I documented one incident. Quick battle. TCP/IP turn based.
i also had this bugg, back in the normandy days , commonwealth expansion . also multiplayer , not sure if its present in single player, maybe to likely
Performance
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
same as red thunder or cmbs. any pc that's 300 dollars will run it almost exactly the same as 900 one