Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Vader's Jester So what you're saying is you'll continue to pay for incomplete games, one after another, always looking forward to the next unfinished product insted of wanting what you already paid for to be finished?No, what we are all saying is that people will continue to pay for the most complete, superior products ever to grace the wargame market, even if they are not 100% perfect. The simplist way to make a game complete, my dear friend, is to set one's sites so low as to be assured of having no loose ends untied. For the Eastern Front the most logical thing would have been leaving out the Axis minor nations and covering a limited number of years. This would have allowed us enough time to complete every model 100%. Of course, there would be 3/4 less to play with, but hey... choices, choices, choices. You don't want to see choices? Tough, life is full of choices. If you want to see more of my rantings about unreasonable and out of line whining... check back in the Forums for a thread announcing the 1.02 patch or somefink like that. It was a whole week of fun and excitement on this BBS. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: So that's the end of the updated models? That really sucks as there are A LOT still using incorrect models! I believe we already went over this. BFC Steve and Lt. Hortlund had a thread about it and I think it was resolved. At least in my eyes, it was resolved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: SuperSulo, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is "imported troops not affected by QB ammo setting" considered a bug worthy of fixing? Most likely not, but I will make sure Charles is aware of it and let him decide. Might be that he is already. Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 SuperSulo, I checked with Charles and... the feature is working as it is supposed to, so it isn't a bug Forces imported are supposed to be imported "as is", including headcount and ammo. So if it has full ammo when imported, you get full ammo on the battlefield. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hi Steve, noticing you're here, I wonder if this is supposed to be normal: 100 StuG IIIG's move 'fast' 800 metres on a flat, dry open map, seven bog? No, I'm not saying it's a bug or necessarily wrong (Redwolf does, though), but maybe if you have time, you'd like to comment on it. Thanks See the post down with the test results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: SuperSulo, I checked with Charles and... the feature is working as it is supposed to, so it isn't a bug Forces imported are supposed to be imported "as is", including headcount and ammo. So if it has full ammo when imported, you get full ammo on the battlefield. Steve But, but, but... it doesn't! It does change the ammo! Now I'm confused, someone else just told me it works as you said too... You've said before it's not possible, but, is it a Mac/PC thing? This is what happens for me, on PC with v1.02: 1. Start scenario editor. 2. Add a platoon of infantry. 3. Edit all their ammo to say 2. 4. Save and exit. 5. Start new game and chose Quick Battle. 6. Set "Ammo" to 10%. 7. Import map and select the scenario you just made, import troops. 8. All the troops you imported has full ammo, not 10%, not 2. So you see, it's not imported "as is" (that's the way I want it, "as is", btw ), it's imported with full ammo, no matter what you set in the QB OR what the troops had when you saved the scenario. Same thing with tanks btw, they all get full, random, ammo (set it to 0 AP and 5 HE, when you import them, they might get 47 AP and 48 HE or whatever). So what gives?! Am I insane? Or is it a Mac/PC thingy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 SuperSulo, AH! OK, that is a bit different. I'll clarify this with Charles and see if that makes a difference. As for bogging in open ground type thing... I'll take a look into that as well. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: No, what we are all saying is that people will continue to pay for the most complete, superior products ever to grace the wargame market, even if they are not 100% perfect. The simplist way to make a game complete, my dear friend, is to set one's sites so low as to be assured of having no loose ends untied. I wasn't attacking Steve, just a minor disenchantment over a game (and company) that I really am a fanboy of! I know there were choices to be made, and I'd rather have more units that all the correct models, but selling a game that is not complete is like selling pants with no crotch. Now, while there is a small market for this, most people want the finished product. I'm just a little bumbed that the remaing models will not be finished one way or the other. I love the game I have very much, but just was hoping for the icing on the cake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Vader's Jester, I wasn't attacking Steve, just a minor disenchantment over a game (and company) that I really am a fanboy of! I know this, but when I see comments like that... well, it makes me want to spend 1/2 as much time making the next game. The fact is that for $45 you are all making out very well compared to other games. We could easily put in 1/2 as much and still justify that price, which of course means we could justify twice the price with everything in 1.0 (not to mention 1.02). That means we are not pleased to hear about all the things we haven't done for customers when the fact is we have done too much by any standard you care to choose. I know there were choices to be made, and I'd rather have more units that all the correct models, but selling a game that is not complete is like selling pants with no crotch. Not correct. Everything that has real meaning (like a crotch for pants) is in the game that is required to play it. Nothing basic is missing. In fact, we have more things in this game than any game compariable to it. What is not done completely are some fluff for more or less rare vehicles. Again, the choice is... have them to play with without 100% complete models, or not have them to play with at all in any form. That is the choice. There is no other choice available. Now, while there is a small market for this, most people want the finished product. The only way to do this is to deliver less. I think "most people" would rather the game as it was with 1.0 than to have had major sections cut out just to say it is "finished". I'm just a little bumbed that the remaing models will not be finished one way or the other. I love the game I have very much, but just was hoping for the icing on the cake. Why do you want more icing on a cake that already has inches of the stuff on it already? That is our position. We could remove half of the icing that is already on the cake and there would still be the best tasting cake with the thickest icing on it compared to all other cakes of the same type. We have also said since 1.0 that we would never include correct models for everything. We have added many since that time but stated very clearly that 1.02 was the last addition. We need to move onto the new engine or we will forever be stuck adding things to something that is, if anything, too big already. I also mean that literally as the PC CD is completely maxed out with 1.02 and the Mac CD will never get beyond 1.0 because it is also maxed out. Steve [ March 10, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Steve, you will never satisy all of the people all of the time. Give it a rest. Your time is better spent working on this patch, the new game, and giving me member #36 because it is my number. Mine only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbaker Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Steve, If you wouldn't mind looking at how indirect area fire (for instance a mortar out of LOS being directed by a CO) works around captured friendly units, I'd appreciate it. Currently, you can't issue such orders if a captured friendly unit is within 20M of the area you're targeting. It allows captured units to be used as gamey shields - you can capture, for instance, the lone survivor of an MG and advance it with your troops, providing an impervious shield from HE area targeting. Worse, the game allows an area fire order within 20M of the captured friendly to "stick" so it appears when you issue the order that it will be carried out. 20M is a large area to be precluding fire from, especially since it applies to all HE area fire down to 50mM mortars, which could presumably shoot at something 20M away from the friendly with little chance of harming it. I understand why there was a limitation imposed (to prevent the "assassination" of captured friendlies, I suppose), but it can lead to a funky situations, especially since you can issue area fire orders with HE right on top of uncaptured friendlies. The potential for abuse by players intentionally using this exploit is certainly present, but I've also seen this crop up also with players who are simply moving a captured unit along with the forces who captured it because there isn't a rear position it can be sent to. [ March 10, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by V: Steve, you will never satisy all of the people all of the time. This is true. And I agree CMBB is the best. And I do understand BFC's position on what was more and less important to include. I did however happen to miss the announcement on the last pach that 'this was it' for the models. Oh, well, back to killing infantry with Srumtigers now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 on that version control thing Back in the Tech support forum several people mentioned that the MAC verison of V1.02 still Says V1.01 on it EVEN after you update. But the game once its open in the GRAPIC on the front page says v1.02 but the get info and the game file (there are no .exe in Macland ) says v1.01! so... I am wondering if that ommission of oversight on the version number of the mac software has anything to do with why players can play (with no noticable problems) v1.01 vs. v1.02? Just curious just trying to help out -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: SuperSulo, AH! OK, that is a bit different. I'll clarify this with Charles and see if that makes a difference. Phew, thank you, I thought I had lost my mind or something... Now I just have to hope Charles thinks it's fixworthy. Btw, if you think it would help, also tell Charles I've injured my back and am pretty much a cripple right now. Seeing this ammo issue getting fixed would maybe lessen my pain... Well it was worth a shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by SuperSulo: Btw, if you think it would help, also tell Charles I've injured my back and am pretty much a cripple right now. Seeing this ammo issue getting fixed would maybe lessen my pain...He's not going to sympathetic since he is just a brain floating in liquid nutrients and doesn't even have a body. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 with the models, if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, then it is an IS3. or halftrack. or duck. or whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortlund Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Nothing positive can possible come from your postings, and therefore they have no value what so ever. I'm staying out of this one. [ March 11, 2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 bump this is good news too bad it fell off page one -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Steve, any word from the jar ehh Charles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by Steve in another thread: Folks, Charles confirmed this as an AI targeting problem. For some reason, like the hits in front of the vehicle, this problem has ALWAYS been in CM since way back when. But for whatever reason, the fix to the afore mentioned bug made it far more noticable. Charles has made a fix for this and we will start internal testing sometime early next week. With any luck this problem will be fixed without ill side effects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steve in another thread: Folks, Charles confirmed this as an AI targeting problem. For some reason, like the hits in front of the vehicle, this problem has ALWAYS been in CM since way back when. But for whatever reason, the fix to the afore mentioned bug made it far more noticable. Charles has made a fix for this and we will start internal testing sometime early next week. With any luck this problem will be fixed without ill side effects. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I ment any words on that ammo "bug"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.