ComradeP Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 cant, dont have the bandwith for such stuff.All right, allow me to give you a screenshot tour of the few moments where planes are visible. The plane you see in the top left of the second shot just passed overhead in the next shot. [ August 05, 2006, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Cowboy8 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Well, this is my second post and apparently I will simply be scouring this forum looking to insult every Grog Troll I can find until I get banned by BFC. Why these people deem it necessary to trash a product that is still under development rather than simply make as many constructive comments as possible is baffling. These people insist on having control of their sandbox and if they don't get their way then they knock down the sand castle and pout. I am a consumer that plays CC, OFP and WWIIOL. I am a different type of consumer that will prefer immersive RTS. I tried a demo of CM and was completely turned of by the "turn" based and "unit" game. WTF is that? Turn-based? Unit based? Wait wait...I need to scratch my ass why I try to give orders to my "unit" soldier icons. Uugh a board game on the computer yay! Use the fricking Pause button ffs. But you know what? I didn't buy CM but will buy ToW. Lord I could go on and on about these idiots whining but I'll just pick one: No tank riding...waaah! Give me a fricking break. What the f%&$ do you think trucks are for you dipstick. Was that part of the grand Axis strategy to ride tanks? LMFAO no they just didn't have trucks in the area to move up so they hopped tanks. By golly in this game you get a spiffy Opel or GMC with a brand new paint job to move your troops. No troops hobbling across those fields with sore butts after bouncing on that steel tank....nosirree. Wait...did CM model sore butts and the mobility reduction? Your precious CMx2 hasn't been impacted by this game development. Please go to that forum and bitch that its not done yet and that the realism isn't perfect on it yet either. Otherwise step off Bozos and let these men work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Looking forward to that difficult third post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Thanks for the new AAR, Rune. I would like to see an all-infantry battle next, with at least a Company on each side. Some off-map light mortar support would be great to see in action. I think we've seen enough tank companies and airpower in support of a couple of Inf squads. Please don't add riding on tanks. With the "thick of battle" engagement ranges, it's totally unnecessary. And I don't mind if you never implement entering buildings. As soon as you do, people will cry about lack of basements and the inability to blow holes in interior walls to move from one blockhouse to the next. Looking forward to this game big time, as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 ComradeP, I think that video wasn't done in-game, rather using a 3D Studio program (or whatever it's called) to do all the animations. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that particular video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I'm not drawing conclusions only comparing how planes are depicted in the video and in the game. The fact that the infantry animations were not in the game doesn't mean that none of it is in-gane footage per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 That was one fierce buttkicking Rune got. If he had not underestimated the germans the AAR could have been maybe 2 pages longer . Nice writeup though. Im ready for more . //Salkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by citizen: Thanks for the new AAR, Rune. What new AAR? I've found it now ..duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 just wondering... is rune suppoed to be one of those super hardcore "CM grogs" referenced by BTS in their statement that veteran CM players tested and instantly liked the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 thanks tovarish ! Originally posted by ComradeP: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> cant, dont have the bandwith for such stuff.All right, allow me to give you a screenshot tour of the few moments where planes are visible. The plane you see in the top left of the second shot just passed overhead in the next shot. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: looks like.... Hollywood. Bad Hollywood. That's kinda the point... of the movie. Humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: just wondering... is rune suppoed to be one of those super hardcore "CM grogs" referenced by BTS in their statement that veteran CM players tested and instantly liked the game? Rune works for Battlefront nowadays. He'll be setting up all the ambushes we'll be tripping into in CMSF. So yes and no...or is that a maybe...hmm.. //Salkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuuSaR Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by ASHBERY76: A short new AAR on Wargamer. http://www.wargamer.com/articles/theatreofwar_aar/ Well that was sort of rookie adventure.... :eek: I just got bit worried about reinforcement, I pray that they are not some dynamic balance feature to help either side.(to keep game going longer time) Because I would deeply hate to demolish enemy, get no reinforcement and see enemy getting masses of help. That would not be very rewarding. But maybe I'm just paranoid. Bad Hollywood. I remember old soviet propaganda movie where tanks were rolling and planes fly maximum low overhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I was not at the showing at CMvention, having to have to work my other job, so no, not one of the CM Grogs that saw it that day. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by TuuSaR: I just got bit worried about reinforcement, I pray that they are not some dynamic balance feature to help either side.(to keep game going longer time) Because I would deeply hate to demolish enemy, get no reinforcement and see enemy getting masses of help. That would not be very rewarding. But maybe I'm just paranoid. such a dynamic, self-regulating system cuts both ways. It worked very fine in CloseCombat (btw. when I say CloseCombat I mean the original CC1). other games with RPG elements (gather experience, upgrade weapons etc.) that lack such a regulating system tend to become more and more lopsided either way. Of course it seems weird to get punished in the next battle for playing well in the battle before. But it can work very fine to adjust the game to be just the right challenge to the single player. we'll have to wait and see how it works out in ToW; but it's not a bad thing per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: I can't help but wonder how many more realism compromises we have to accept for this game. Yeah, I know, I'm a whiner. So what. Will this "addon" be released as a patch, or as a payware deal? Because I can't see myself paying extra for content that is IMHO crucial to a tactical WW2 game. Sorry for the negativity, but it seems evertime I come here with high hopes for the game, another piece is taken away (and pieces added that do not fit, like the "recrewing of AT Guns"). This will certainly not be a clickfest-RTS, but with a few more pieces taken away, it will not remain a realistic WW2 either. Come on Colonel, where's that long-term vision? There's a hard reality you have to face here, and it concerns money. If you want the full cathedral you can't expect to get it for pennies. £30? That'll get the foundation stones, then expect to pay £20 for each block and £10 for dress stones. Quality requires a synergistic alliance between the purchaser and the developer/publisher, an ongoing exchange of money for work/code. As I've said so often concerning IL2, I'll happily pay £30 repeatedly for new content, even if it's for stuff that "should have been in right from the start". So let's see...£30 for the first add-on, that'll include mortars and crewable buildings. For Waffen-SS units? I'll cough-up £100 easy. Siggi. XXX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 My only serious problem is the development time: no matter how you turn it, mortars were in at one point (as proven by screenshots) and it doens't look like the environments have improved much, so I wonder what all the extra time was used for, as a lot of the features were already visible (perhaps not coded) years ago. In fact: one might add that the game was "nerfed" instead of enhanced, as ranges are currently ridiculous, but might change and mortars were in, but have been removed. I'm not sure about houses, but I don't think they were ever interactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by ComradeP: I'm not sure about houses, but I don't think they were ever interactive.If I'm not completely mis-remembering it, the comment was made that it was possible to enter buildings, but the developers had problems with the camera viewpoint, and so took that out. Edit: It was about gameplay and balancing: Some questions It is possible for the engine, we had this feature, but we dropped it about a year ago - smth with gameplay and balancing [ August 06, 2006, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Sirocco ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 OK, so more nerfs. I don't see how rural houses, or houses in cities, which can be blasted by anything over 50mm with relative ease, would impact gameplay so much that it would not be included in this game, but is included in other games (including RTS-wargames like Blitzkrieg). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by rune: I was not at the showing at CMvention, having to have to work my other job, so no, not one of the CM Grogs that saw it that day. Rune rune, aeeing the first screenshot I was immediately wondering whether you didn't "buy" the Char B1-bis, since - I guess this must be universal knowledge among CM players - its frontal armor is practically immune to german KwK and PaK guns of that era (all but the mighty 8.8). In hindsight it was a good choice, seeing how much german aircraft filled the skies over the battlefield. Did you know before your game that there is that much emphasis on unrealistic direct close air support, and decide against the Char B-1 bis accordingly on purpose? And how much is this purchase screen worth if much more of your units stem from sudden reinforcements anyhow, which you have no choice in or even knowledge about their composition and quantity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 I would guess that, taking the apparant complexity behind the "reinforcements" formula into account, the initial player units are very important. If Rune would've had a Char B1-bis, and could have hidden it from German airpower, he would have dominated the Germans (as they lacked weapons with high AP values in this particular scenario). I found the airsupport in the scenario Rune played to be more...balanced, as there were plenty of French tanks and the Luftwaffe, generally, had more planes to send on ground attack missions against tanks in France than in Poland (as the French armoured forces that posed the biggest threat were basically concentrated in one area, except for the unit in the Netherlands). I am, however, wondering why the armoured detachment lacked AA MG's or any sort of AA protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by Sigrun: Siggi. XXX Oh man. Memorys of a looooong gone past. Where the hell did your bloody website go, btw? Now that was a cornerstone of flightsim culture in it's days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: I'll be giving it a rest after this post.... I'm outta here, don't bother replying. Textbook. Welcome back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 I'm not talking about TOW anymore, Melibone. I'm talking with a guy I haven't seen for three years and known for six. You'll have to excuse my presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigrun: Siggi. XXX Oh man. Memorys of a looooong gone past. Where the hell did your bloody website go, btw? Now that was a cornerstone of flightsim culture in it's days. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts