Jump to content

pilgrim

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I thought so too when I saw the first prototype. It's so easy to lose track of the scale of things when they all get squished onto a monitor. :-D You and nearly everyone else that replies to me...it just usually starts with "Howdy, pilgrim..."
  2. I'd really hoped we were going to see the Husky in CMSF:Brits....I did the engineering analysis on the Husky chassis and rear box. :-) Nonetheless, it's nice to see it in the news.
  3. Wow. You guys are awesome. Thanks ever so much for the help! One hour after I post, I have a scenario recommended, a scenario hand-generated, and links with enough pictures to keep my boys busy until summer. Thanks again, guys.
  4. Hello all! Based on the reports of 1.05, I finally bought CMSF two weeks ago. So far, I'm really enjoying it, and my kids (mainly my two older boys, 12 & 10) have become really interested while watching it. They're now asking to try it, but I fear they'll be overwhelmed. I have two main problems, I think. First, with boardgames and pc games, I've always played (and nudged them) in the direction of WWII and medieval, so while they have an understanding of WWII equipment (Axis & Allies miniatures, etc.) and knights and castles, they have no clue what a Stryker is, or a Bradley, or an AT-4, etc. Secondly, while they're used to RTS type of games (drag a box, select the units, and throw that at the enemy horde, ala Age of Empires II), they'd be a bit overwhelmed with the scenarios on the disk that I've played. I thought that the "2-man" icon would be somewhat small battles, but even those contain 12 or so Bradleys, and that's about 10 too many to start with. So, here are my requests. Would any kind soul be able to help? 1. Is there a nice slideshow of modern equipment on the web -- especially in the Iraq setting, since the desert/buildings will make more sense to the game setting -- that I could show them? I'm just trying to give them an overview of the equipment, uniforms, etc. (If it helps clarify things, here's another example: I grew up watching Nascar, etc., so I have a liking for cars driving around in circles. I've never really watched it with my kids, so when I bought them a Nascar game, they just had no "connection" to it...they knew what they had to do to win, but it just had no ties to anything they'd seen before.) I'd like CMSF to make a good first impression -- if it's "too confusing" or "too boring" when they try to play themselves, they'll give it up. I don't need technical specs, etc.; nice pictures of equipment/soldiers -- especially in action -- would immediately impress them. 2. I need a small intro scenario. I tried the one "1-man" icon scenarion (ATGM Ambush, or something like that), but I'm not sure it shows off CMSF at it's best. Is there a very small, simple, occupy-a-village scenario that someone could recommend? Is the editor easy enough for me to make one? Has someone made one but never posted it to a download site, but you'd be willing to email it to me? I know it sounds like I'm begging for handouts. I'll admit it. Right now I'm working two jobs while trying to refinish our basement in my spare time. I took a couple of days off over the holidays to play the game, and that's when the boys saw it, so I'd like to capitalize while they're still interested. Thanks for any and all help that you can give, even if it's just pointing me in the right direction of "google _this_".
  5. If the attackers goal is to "take/seize/control the bridge", then let's examine the satisfaction level of the attacking CO for the following cases: (Let's define "group" = "2 mobile vehicles with thick armor and working 120mm guns") 0. No attacking groups on the bridge, 1 defending group on the bridge. Completely unsuccsessful for the attacker. 1. 1 attacking group on the bridge, but also 1 defending group on the bridge. In this case, it seems that neither side controls the bridge, so it's "contested control". For the attacker, this is certainly better than the defender having full control, but no CO would say that the job is done. 2. One attacking group on the bridge, no defending groups on the bridge. Now, the attacker has full control of the objective. So, the situations could result in the following point scheme: </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Situation Attacker Points Defender Points --------- --------------- --------------- 0 None Max 1 25% of Max None 2 Max None</pre>
  6. Sorry if this has been mentioned already, or if it's intended, or (insert reason I shouldn't have posted)... Yesterday in MP, and then I replicated it today in Standalone: if you land your drop pod on top of the base walls on the Ice map -- which I did intentionally, because I wanted Jung to stop shooting me -- the drop pod never opens.
  7. pilgrim

    I hate you guys.

    Oh, believe me, you're in there. If you'd like to be part of the "especially" crowd -- and yes, it is an exclusive bunch -- I'll try to dig up something. *ruffle, shuffle, ruffle, crumple* Ah, here it is. ....and Squiddy, especially, because he used the word synethesia. ("...on the other, the tac is a kind of sensor synesthesia..."). Synesthesia? Synesthesia? Despicable. However, your membership is tenuous, at best. How can I hate anybody very long who can generate this kind of phraseology: Murdered electrons to produce your message needlessly. Wow. Anymore of that poetry, and you're gone from the I-hate club.
  8. I hate you. Yes, all of you. Yurch, especially, because he makes everything sound fascinating. Poesel, especially, because he types what I'm thinking. The rest of you -- and yes, Clay, you especially -- because you've all pushed me past the breaking point. I heard about the game, saw the initial screenshots, and thought the game was, well, lacking. Then the beta came and I was hooked. Hooked in a major way. But there's no way I could justify $45 for myself, and I convinced myself that 3 copies (one for myself, and one for 2 of my boys, and we'd play at home on a LAN) was just too expensive. Then, the dual eLicense thing came. Two copies. I'd only need two copies. But two copies was still too expensive, right? So, I played the demo. And played the demo. And played the demo some more. And read. Read about infantry. Read about new maps. Read about new scenarios. Read about a $35 price tag. $35 was still too expensive, right? (Hey! I'm a bargain-bin kind of guy. Build a pc that's a year behind, and buy year-old games, and everything's cheaper, right?) But, then came the Bacchus. And a $35 price tag. And a blown motherboard at home that made me rebuild a pc. And a new notebook ("for you, my darling wife") that just happens to play DropTeam acceptably. Fine. I surrender. I clicked the Buy button, and now I'm downloading this too expensive game that I've already put more hours into than 25 of my bargain bin purchases combined. I hate you guys. All of you.
  9. Cameroon, if I could step back and see the forest instead of the trees, I'd probably have to agree with you. However, I'm stuck in the middle of it, and all I can see is trees. For me, there's not much difference between 1 and 2 seats per license, since there are 3 of us, so either way we need more than one copy of a game. I haven't bought a full-price game since CMBO, and I've never bought 2 copies of a full-price game. I'll admit that I certainly got my money's worth out of CMBO, and there are very, very few games that I can say that about, even buying the rest of them at a discount. But, two copies is just too expensive. However, taking a couple of steps back to look at things outside of my personal situation, I'll freely admit that what they've done is very generous. Even more so, to have a team discussion and to make such a significant change in policy this late in the ball game shows a very resposive attitude toward customer satisfaction. While the answer isn't exactly what I (greedily) (personally) wanted, it's an answer for which the DropTeam guys should be commended, since it does show a desire for long-term customer relationships.
  10. No problem on the delay -- the thread was semi-inactive long enough that I wasn't even sure you'd seen the question, so I thought the bump was the easiest way to get it noticed. Thanks for the answer!
  11. A slight bump to hopefully get an anwer before the pre-order offer expires. To sum up... Ignoring _online_ play, just consider a local game at home on a LAN: what do I need to buy in order for 3 people to play simultaneously?
  12. :confused: Combining this thread, Moon's Dad +1 comment, and your Dad + 0.5 comment, with the "Online Activation" thread leaves me a bit confused. Let's completely ingore Online play for right now. Let's say I have 3 pc's in my house, and two of the boys and I want to sit down and play. Not online -- just a game against each other on our own LAN in the house. I'm don't understand whether the eLicense lets two of us play, 1.5 of us play ... -- somebody gets to use either the mouse or the keyboard, but not both -- or more than that, since we're not authenticating against the online server. Sorry for my denseness, but this is a bit important to me. The public beta swung me from a Never-Buy-It-at-That-Price to a Very-Possible buy, but now I'm not sure exactly what I would need. Thanks!
  13. I'll have them call you when we try to figure out who gets to play and who gets to sit.
  14. Ouch. I realize there are valid reasons for doing it this way, but that completely kills the idea of dad + 2 sons on a LAN at home.
  15. I poked around the actual webpage but couldn't find the answer: How many copies of the game will be required for LAN play...1 for the LAN, or 1 per client? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...