Sequoia Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Originally posted by Madmatt: Of course you guys could just wait until we ASK for new ideas to put into CMx2. heheheh Madmatt Yes but we're encourage by comments like this: Originally posted by Moon: Indeed, and it would be good if you start another if you like to continue. I am going to lock this now. The fact that it'll be locked doesn't mean that your suggestions were useless. Quite the contrary, we've found a number of interesting ideas, as usual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Doing research on the Cruiser tanks, it seems they were NOT given the degination of burns easily for no reason. I am GUESSING the reason is the Cruiser tanks all had gasoline engines, whereas the majority of other British tanks were diesel. I found one reference that states the engine did burn when hit, but any engine would, so I am guessing it has to do with the fuel. More if I find anything. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Should the Archer's crew be more likely to survive hit than other tanks? Archer is based on the Valentine? And the gun's mounted backwards, so that means that a hit on an Archer's "front" means that the shell has to go through the engine block. And it's open topped, so it's easy to bail out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 If this patch things get people up in arms, then I look forward to seeing the response of the non WWII CMx2! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Originally posted by REVS: I'm just guessing here, but I strongly suspect part of the problem for some of the BFC guys who post here is that sometimes they have to 'defend' a decision that they might not fully agree with. ie, they might have some good, raging debates within the BFC crew about changes that some of us are asking for. They might even also want the same changes we want, but once the 'corporate' decision has been made, they have to accept the verdict and back it publicly, even if they didn't back it privately. It's one of the prices paid by anyone who is both part of a decision-making team, and also a spokesperson. And I know it can really get under your skin if some critic outside the organisation accuses you of not giving a damn about an issue that you actually fought for ... and lost the fight. Not sure if any of the BFC guys fall into that category, but somehow I suspect one or two do, every now and then. ...hmmmm... could be.... Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurtzDonut Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Thus concludes this episode of, "As the Grog turns" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 I was gonna ring a bell and announce "round twoooooooooo!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 When I suggested we all go and post in a CMX2 thread, I didn't said it would be very useful, I said it would be MORE helpful than complaining about things that as it stands now will not be fixed. I agree threads about the new engine are just good fun and pure speculation, but I like a good brainstorming session, and if a glimmer of a new idea finds it's way into the new game, all the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Hi, thanks BFC for the patch! If asked, I'd say my cup is half full, not half empty... Cheers, Richie Boots & Tracks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 12, 2004 Author Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by Le Tondu: I was gonna ring a bell and announce "round twoooooooooo!" Do you think the renewable bomb loads is a showstopper? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Do you think the renewable bomb loads is a showstopper? Well it certainly is for those folks that picked some of those aircraft types in their PBEM games. I'd even say it would be a serious shock to those who don't know it is there and then witness it. -Expecially if it happens late in a very long PBEM game. Wouldn't it be a showstopper for you? I know it would be for me. Now the BIG question. Does it get fixed? How can it not? Leaving it there makes part of their product unusable. It is sort of like buying a new car that has a broken heater. The car is works fine until it gets cold out. Would you accept General Motors' instructions to not use the car during the winter? No, you'd ask to have it fixed. That's all that we're doing with the renewable bomb load bug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Oh get off it you guys. How many times has BFC said that CMAK 1.03 was it and all work was being focused on CMx2? How long did it take before anyone even noticed this bug with the aircraft bombloads? What happens if in another year someone 'discovers' something else wrong, should BFC stop the presses and fix it ASAP? Comparing a miniscule feature of a ground tactical game to a vital component of any vehicle in the Northern Hemisphere is beyond asinine. Take a reality check or better yet ask yourselves why the vindictiveness and insistence that BFC be held hostage for a product that has been repeatedly proclaimed "finished". If BFC comes out and says hey guys we patched up a few other things in CMAK and hell even found some time to tidy up a few things with CMBB, then great!.... but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Ron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Showstopper = Massive coronary, Brain aneurysm etc. renewable bomb loads = more bang for your buck. Lotsa things going Boom. I like that. Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredKors Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I'm pessimistic about the fixing of this AIR-bug (CMBB and CMAK). As programmer I can say that this sort of bugs can be easily be found and fixed (an hour or work?). The problem is that every change in the code has to be tested extensively because there is ever the possibility to introduce collateral effects (see the 1.02 of CMAK). Then they have to produce the patchs for all versions of CMAK and CMBB, to distribuite them and so on. Maybe 2 days of works? What is the prize for? Personal satisfaction? Professional satisfaction? The satisfaction of the 0.05% of the CMAK and CMBB users (I and Le Tondu)? Say me: who of us will not buy CM2 because of this bug? In Italy we say: not even a dog shakes its tail gratis... [ December 13, 2004, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: FredKors ] 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.