Homo ferricus Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Homo ferricus, You forgot to predict that BFC will be out of business soon because you do not like a particular game design decision! Best regards, Thomm That is indeed very true. They will go out of business and live on the street and suffer for not listening to me when i begged them for concealable trenches and unit kill information. I don't see what they don't understand--we have been here since the first game came out, arguing and complaining on the forums. I, for one, think that because they take the time to visit and post on the forum and interface with us faithful customers, that implies we have the right to be treated and listened to as if we are on the developing team, as we should, because we are the faithful customers, whose dollar counts for far more than any non-member of the forum. I mean, we've been here since the first game came out. This should obviously mean a lot to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Are those buttercups and daisies? Are you implying something about some of the posters here, Adam? LOL! Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'm surprised nobody reminded us all of what was included in the original CMBO Beta Demo. You know, the one of two scenarios that got people all excited about buying CMBO. Hmmm... now what was it that was in Last Defense? Anybody want to refresh our collective memories? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't a Sherman Steve So let me get this straight: Tiger = sexy that rhymes with good marketingexy? Or: we were just shodding around and had a pickie of a Tiger from the new game that we were messing around with (because we oh so love Tigers, they are sexy!) and decided to post one up? Albeit that all the above is quite superfluous to the flesh and blood of the new game, it's been a fun discussion. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Is CMx2 Normandy going to have as detailed an armor penetration model (with ammo quality and all that) as CMBB & AK? CMSF is already superior to CMx1 in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 CMSF is already superior to CMx1 in this regard. How exactly? I'm interested in a general comparison of how it is better and why. Thanks forf the reply in advance! Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Great! I'd love to know more about it. One fact is established: CMx2 is able to trace the hit down to the polygon/component that is hit. Otherwise it would not be possible to hit individual components like ERA-bricks. It can be assumed that these items have an armor rating, such that penetration can be predicted much better than the generic armor description in CMx1 (lower hull / upper hull / turret / front / side / back). Modifiers like "rounded" should be obsolete now. I guess the rest of the refinements for composite armor and HEAT warheads are not so important for WW II. Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I believe that the flightpath of the projectile is tracked thru the inside of the vehicle being hit. So a kinetic round from a M1A2 going into a T72 will destroy pretty much everything due combustion and the pressure change. A lesser type of armour piercing round might destroy the radio, wound the loader and kill the commander and not much else. It's all relative to where the round strikes, which type of round it is, distance, wind factor, velocity and many other physic related issues concerning ballistics. As much as I love the old CM series I think a lot of this might have been either fudged or randomised if the vehicle was not knocked out. In CMSF it comes down to which polygon gets it. I am not a particularly intelligent person but to me the CMSF way of doing things seems superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 There's also not too many states between an intact tank and a burning tank in CMx1. You can have gun damage, you can have immobilization and you can have crew casualties, but that's the extent of it. The equipment modeling of CMx2 with varying states of damage is just outstanding. The Nahverteidigungswaffe is no longer safe!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'd love to see some visual damage on tanks. Blown of tracks, side skirts, a burning engine or exterior storages on fire etc..Would be so nice if BFC could afford this kind of stuff. They do have disappearing era blocks. A simple disappearing track or armor plate wont be bad for a start. Also, if space permits I would love to see a damage panel on the UI, with a diagram of the tank and highlighted areas hit or damaged. Yellow for light damage/red for destroyed. Granted it will require some extra time of graphical work so I understand if it stays out. What CMx1 did and many people mistake it to be superior to CMSF is that it let you know more "inside info" than the latter. The hit text is an example. We do get gun hits, dud rounds and ricochets now and much more complex penetrations but we never know the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Leto, So let me get this straight: Tiger = sexy that rhymes with good marketingexy? Or: we were just shodding around and had a pickie of a Tiger from the new game that we were messing around with (because we oh so love Tigers, they are sexy!) and decided to post one up? Err... both. For reasons of his own, Dan decided to texture a Tiger. Since everything has to be textured at some point we don't give a flying fig in what order he does things, so that was all well and fine. Then a few days ago Dan sent us internal types a pic and then someone posted about it being the Forum's 10th Anniversary. We thought the occasion deserved some sort of bone, so we decided that the pic was sexy enough to be the first, and we posted it. It's really that simple. Adam, After all this time here on the Forum it's hard for me to imagine that you're as clueless as you appear to be about the armor modeling. Others have already illustrated specifics, but the general difference between CMx1 armor modeling and CMx2 is that CMx1 was quite abstract (i.e. dice rolls) while CMx2's is far more direct. So it has all the detail of CMx1 and far more accountability. Which baffles me as to why you think that Normandy will have LESS detail when clearly that would require us ripping out code which is already in the game and substituting it with something less sophisticated than we did 11 years ago. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 But does not knowing the "inside info" convey so much more to the gamer and provide the gamer with information that not only contributes to a more enjoyable and immersive gameplay, but also to build skill and capacity around this information? Would be nice to see this "visual" and "statistical" and "operational" expression in CMx2. But like it has been said, we cannot have everything, yes? : )P Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'd also love to see more visual representation of the effects of gunfire on vehicles. Unfortunately, it's a lot of coding and we feel there are higher priorities. Despite some people's claims that we are all about graphics over substance, we somehow keep managing to put game features ahead of graphical ones on the priority development list. Guess I didn't get the memo we've got it backwards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Leto;1122022']So let me get this straight: Tiger = sexy that rhymes with good marketingexy? Or: we were just shodding around and had a pickie of a Tiger from the new game that we were messing around with (because we oh so love Tigers, they are sexy!) and decided to post one up? Albeit that all the above is quite superfluous to the flesh and blood of the new game, it's been a fun discussion. Cheers! Leto FWIW, I have a hard on for Tigers in general, and late-production Tigers in Normandy in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Leto, Err... both. For reasons of his own, Dan decided to texture a Tiger. Since everything has to be textured at some point we don't give a flying fig in what order he does things, so that was all well and fine. Then a few days ago Dan sent us internal types a pic and then someone posted about it being the Forum's 10th Anniversary. We thought the occasion deserved some sort of bone, so we decided that the pic was sexy enough to be the first, and we posted it. It's really that simple. Steve And don't forget, superfluous to a myriad of other issues... my main point is who cares? The more important question is: "when do we get more?" Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Personally, I have a soft spot for the german halftracks. Love to see the myriad of different models in high res and poly fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'd also love to see more visual representation of the effects of gunfire on vehicles. Unfortunately, it's a lot of coding and we feel there are higher priorities. Despite some people's claims that we are all about graphics over substance, we somehow keep managing to put game features ahead of graphical ones on the priority development list. Guess I didn't get the memo we've got it backwards Steve Point taken and already acknowledged previously. Whether you have it backwards or forwards is for the market to decide. When resources are constrained, you have to make priorities, and hope that they are transformed into the most value as possible, and more importantly, have that value communicated to the marketplace as effectively as possible. One of the reasons for this MB I would think? I also understand, unlike others perhaps, that this MB only provides you with a small percentage of the input and feedback that you require. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I want infantry to be afraid of MGs I want MGs to be afraid of tanks I want tanks to be afraid of ATGs I want ATGs to be afraid of mortars I want mortars to be afraid of infantry I want arty to be a blind, deadly giant I want Borris and Tommy and Joe and Fritz. I want an Achillies and a Churchill XI and a Sherman 105. I want a Tiger and a Panther and a T34/76 and a Wildcat I want zooks and shreks and PIATs and fausts. I want rain and clouds and fog and ice. I want water and bridges and splashes and boats. I want mud and sand and steppe and rocks. I want immobilisations and gun hits and crew panics and abandoning I want strafing and bombs and rockets and triple A. I want trenches and airbursts and panic and prisoners. I want rallying and bravery and outlandish results and stark, naked terror. I want to cherry pick. I want to TCP/IP WEGO. I want to see action at a distance. I want C2 and FOW And I want it ALL and I want it NOW. And this is not a definitive list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Whether you have it backwards or forwards is for the market to decide. When resources are constrained, you have to make priorities, and hope that they are transformed into the most value as possible, and more importantly, have that value communicated to the marketplace as effectively as possible. Almost correct, but not quite. Two points: - One thing often missed in MBA classes is the long-term aspect of doing business. "most value" and "effective communication" traditionally are related to immediate results. "Sales today" is what is often used to measure how effective and how valuable things are. But this isn't *quite* the way we work. Our philosophy is that the long-term results are what really counts, or at least counts as much as today's results. If you have played a few Battlefront games you will perhaps notice a common theme: "deep" gameplay. Our philosophy is that if the game is "good" then it will prevail. Instead of spending time and assets on maximizing today's profits, we prefer to put in the time to design a game that we think is "good". If we had an endless supply of resources we could perhaps do both, but as it is we think that making good games is better down the road than boasting about them. Our busines model - internet sales - allows us to do this as well. If we had to sell primarily through retail it wouldn't be possible - "day one sales" is the magic word there. - if we were driven by the idea to "maximize profits" (which is what "most value" and "most effective communication" are about in the end), we wouldn't be doing PC wargames, but creating sports games for Wii. Luckily, for you, everyone at Battlefront is driven as much by the idea of making the games that they like to play themselves as by the idea that we need to make profit (we do, but not "at all cost" and "beyond any other considerations"). The fact that Battlefront is still here after 10 years while many competitors are not so far seems to confirm that our philosophy can't be all that wrong. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Guy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I would have to go with Ali-baba on that. Hanomags and PzV are my favs. What about the Davidson-Duryea gun carriage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidson-Duryea_gun_carriage When will this be modeled? It does not look that much different than a Bren. On a more serious question, and one that I am NOT asking you to model in CM: Normandy is - was any captured Russian equipment every used by German forces fighting the western allies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I want infantry to be afraid of MGs I want MGs to be afraid of tanks I want tanks to be afraid of ATGs I want ATGs to be afraid of mortars I want mortars to be afraid of infantry I want arty to be a blind, deadly giant I want Borris and Tommy and Joe and Fritz. I want an Achillies and a Churchill XI and a Sherman 105. I want a Tiger and a Panther and a T34/76 and a Wildcat I want zooks and shreks and PIATs and fausts. I want rain and clouds and fog and ice. I want water and bridges and splashes and boats. I want mud and sand and steppe and rocks. I want immobilisations and gun hits and crew panics and abandoning I want strafing and bombs and rockets and triple A. I want trenches and airbursts and panic and prisoners. I want rallying and bravery and outlandish results and stark, naked terror. I want to cherry pick. I want to TCP/IP WEGO. I want to see action at a distance. I want C2 and FOW And I want it ALL and I want it NOW. And this is not a definitive list. I don't find this sarcasm constructive, nor very helpful to BFC considering you are a beta tester. Do you not want an open discussion for potential customers to tell you what they want? If not, then state it as such. Snide commentary like this leads people to believe this may be the case. Their will be feedback good and bad. Their will be people telling you what they want, wishlists and concerns. It's your job to evaluate and use the data, not inject personal bias that is both insulting and unnecessary. How you react to all this says a lot more about you (and unfortunately the company) than it does about the (majority) of the people posting here. Sheesh. Just to add, the point of the post is not lost on me, considering the history of these forums. But... come on? Fighting fire with fire is an exercise in failure (in regards to respectful and constructive community building), unless it is to only serve your own personal whims. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Leto;1122070']I don't find this sarcasm constructive, nor very helpful to BFC considering you are a beta tester. Do you not want an open discussion for potential customers to tell you what they want? If not, then state it as such. Snide commentary like this leads people to believe this may be the case. Their will be feedback good and bad. Their will be people telling you what they want, wishlists and concerns. It's your job to evaluate and use the data, not inject personal bias that is both insulting and unnecessary. How you react to all this says a lot more about you (and unfortunately the company) than it does about the (majority) of the people posting here. Sheesh. Cheers! Leto Beta testers don't represent the company.There are a lot of games which host beta trials. No-one ever assumes the speak for the company either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I want infantry to be afraid of MGs I want MGs to be afraid of tanks I want tanks to be afraid of ATGs I want ATGs to be afraid of mortars I want mortars to be afraid of infantry I want arty to be a blind, deadly giant I want Borris and Tommy and Joe and Fritz. I want an Achillies and a Churchill XI and a Sherman 105. I want a Tiger and a Panther and a T34/76 and a Wildcat I want zooks and shreks and PIATs and fausts. I want rain and clouds and fog and ice. I want water and bridges and splashes and boats. I want mud and sand and steppe and rocks. I want immobilisations and gun hits and crew panics and abandoning I want strafing and bombs and rockets and triple A. I want trenches and airbursts and panic and prisoners. I want rallying and bravery and outlandish results and stark, naked terror. I want to cherry pick. I want to TCP/IP WEGO. I want to see action at a distance. I want C2 and FOW And I want it ALL and I want it NOW. And this is not a definitive list. Yes We Can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Leto;1122070']I don't find this sarcasm constructive' date=' nor very helpful to BFC considering you are a beta tester.[/quote'] That was no sarcasm - I can testify that that is what Other Means is like as a tester. In fact, that is the standard format of his reports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts