Tejszd wrote (View Post): |
Tanks can not drive over the Pegasus bridge in TLD since the path finding update in 2011 |
mooxe wrote (View Post): | ||
The granddaddy of them all from igotmilk, he made this one either in 2006 or prior,,,, |
schrecken wrote (View Post): |
Is Jim still on the team? ... he was against any fixes |
johnsilver wrote (View Post): |
I liked the F/Pool system pretty much from the outset of CC5 over the style CC3 had and thought it was a vast improvement, getting rid of the forced resting of individual troops that both CC3/COI have, along with restrictive purchase points. CC4 was getting that way and the maps were sweet also. |
schrecken wrote (View Post): | ||
That was indeed the plan and why in WaR the features had switches... what happened after i became sidelined is anybody's guess. Also planned was for new releases to become all part of one game.. you just chose which scenario wou wanted to play, War, tLD,ABTF etc... this was the genesis of thew /D switch. Theoretically if you had purchased an update you could then tweak your own game by turning various features on and off.. eg adding night turns and bridge blowing to WaR, parachute drops to tLD etc ... following this path any bugs would be eventually eradicated with each new release as it was a development of the one set ogf code. Unfortunately this did not happen |
Troger wrote (View Post): | ||
Schrecken, I know guys like you put a lot of work into things, but I don't understand your trolling of those of us who posted against the releases and calling them out for what there were. I remember you defending the only noticeable addition to Cross of Iron, the now famous and STILL present girly soldiers ('enemy spotted', 'redeployment adorted' ad-fucking-nausem). How could you defend that crap? It's ruined every release since. Whose idea was that anyways? |
Quote: |
The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases. |
schrecken wrote (View Post): |
The Blood implemented that without consultaion or notification as far as I know.. so well picked up by the community. I believe the effects were reduced/toned down at least twice while i was involved but it is hard coded. I am a conservative player and did not play Rambo style so it's effects went little noticed by me in general game play... only when testing specifically was it noticeable.... but it is a control that would favor Rambo style players. |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
The fact that so many players cannot really form a true consensus regarding strategic and tactical game features, makes life more difficult for the developers of CC. -Stwa Late in my CC gaming experience, I eventually formed the opinion that the developers NEED NOT take into consideration the ideas of a very small, finite group of on-line posters, that promoted multiplayer gaming. The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases. |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
The countless threads at this site alone reveal this utter lack of consensus as to what features constitutes a valid Close Combat game. It would be better for developers to follow their own ideas regarding the development of additional CC releases. |
Quote: |
The current girly soldier situation makes these type of tactics much harder. However, it is annoying because as said by others here, the units just stop whatever they are doing and lie on their bellies out in the open when they are under fire. -Pzt_Crackwise |
Quote: |
Summarizing, even if it may result in slightly more realistic gameplay, girly soliders as it is, is detrimental for gameplay and makes it much harder to advance let alone assult on a map as the attacker. -Pzt_Crackwise |
mooxe wrote (View Post): |
Crippling the human player to give the AI a chance is the wrong way to go about it. In my Carentan video, the rambo tactic could of easily been smashed if the AI deployed better. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT