Jump to content

76mm

Members
  • Content Count

    1,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by 76mm

  1. Fair enough,. although as mentioned the fact is that there are plenty of fanbois on this forum, and the poster in question simply noted their existence without labeling anyone as such, so I'm not sure who would have objected, especially to the extent of, for instance, drawing-and-quartering or other medieval tortures.
  2. Yes, but the problem is that many newish posters on the forum were not been around as those issues that were hashed and rehashed many times (often many years ago); sometimes "supporters" respond respectfully but as often as not they respond with an unwarranted degree of exasperation and condescension for bringing such and such topic up again. I suspect that if you're seeing less back-and-forth than you expected, it is because people with critical questions or comments just don't post as often. As you point out, on other forums this board's reputation is that it is not welcoming of critical comments, and I don't think that that reputation was is completely unearned. While I agree that not very many juvenile morons post on this forum, that is mainly because the games do not appeal much to juvenile morons.
  3. Please speak for yourself. The fact is that there are plenty of fanbois on this forum, and they do not encourage candid discussion of the game. If the fanbois don't like labels perhaps they should stop labeling everyone that voices the slightest criticism as a hater or troll. I'm happy to hear a wide variety of opinions on this forum.
  4. Says the guy spouting off about "bolshie lovers" and "red bastards"? Seriously? And ignorant about what, exactly? I've lived in Germany for five years and in Russia for 15 years, so know both countries reasonably well. I've read hundreds of books about the Eastern Front, so don't really consider myself ignorant about the war either. Spent four years in the army, so know something about military stuff... So what please enlighten me how you are so much better informed that I am? Or perhaps are you one of those people that considers anyone that doesn't agree with them "ignorant"?
  5. Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military. That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country? Weird...
  6. I like a lot of the suggestions...but please not this one...there can only be one CMBB!
  7. Yeah, understood and probably a wise move. That said, IMHO Fire and Rubble is rather blah--is this set in stone or is it a temporary placeholder?
  8. The screenshots are definitely nice and appreciated--didn't mean to come across as unappreciative--but without more they mainly drew reactions from all of the usual suspects.
  9. Yes, we've been told that at least quite a bit of Lend-Lease equipment has been added, although I can't speak to when/if screenshots will be available.
  10. Thanks for the good vibes. The new screenshots look good, although without more they don't mean much IMHO. I don't think that many here doubt that some work is happening on the CMRT module, or that it will be released at some point. And I have to say that the new screenshots didn't exactly set the forum on fire...
  11. hmm, ok; not perfect but definitely better than nothing.
  12. Not sure that I understand correctly, but it doesn't seem like a "copy move" command would work, because the various vehicles would encounter curves in the road, etc., at different points in their move and so would drive off the road? Or am I missing something?
  13. I played GTOS many years ago, and for reasons I don't recall didn't care much for it. I haven't tried GTOS...sounds interesting, but I understand that it doesn't have a map editor, which would be a deal breaker for me--is that correct?
  14. Of course not; all reasonable efforts should be made to ensure accurate OOBs/TO&E, but everyone should recognize the limits of historicity.
  15. As a follow-up to the TO&E discussion, tonight I started reading what looks to be an interesting book about German production and manning levels on the Eastern Front (Enduring the Whirlwind https://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Whirlwind-Russo-German-1941-1943-Wolverhampton-ebook/dp/B073WF9S9W/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PHB33HR9452B&keywords=enduring+the+whirlwind&qid=1570496974&sprefix=enduring+the+wh%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1) The question the book seeks to answer is: ""Did the German war effort in the East fail due to the numerical inferiority of German forces and an inability to replace losses?" In his introduction, the author says that the Germans made some 3,000 changes to their TO&E during the course of the war, but were never able to carry all of these changes out in a uniform manner throughout the army, with the result that no two German divisions actually had the exact same TO&E, even if they were of the same type of division. It sounds like coming with with 100% accurate standard TO&E for German units at any given moment would be challenging indeed, if not impossible...
  16. As IanL says, no date estimate, but I've be surprised if it came out before mid 2020, and later is certainly possible. Note that the various quotes in this thread that "'We're very sure it will be before the end of this year" are referring to 2018, so that I would not give any weight to that at all.
  17. Agreed. I think that this is also correct to a certain extent, but I would think that a lot of the old topics would continue to be discussed as new players join the forum who had not participated in the many past discussions. But that does not seem to be happening; seems like either new members are reviewing old forum content without further discussion (which frankly doesn't seem especially likely) or the topics simply aren't being discussed.
  18. I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever). MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him. Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time. Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time... And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...
  19. Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"? Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not. For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II? Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials? Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time? Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right? I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"? As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff. You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason? Has anyone actually suggested that? You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right? And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end. Command Ops has an interesting system IMO. They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine. Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now? Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.
  20. Well, what I own and what are on my hard drive currently are two very different questions, but currently: TOAW IV, several Panzer Campaigns games, several Battlefront games (including CMBB), CMANO, COTD, CSME, Desert War, Empires in Arms, FOG2, SoW Waterloo, SoW Gettysburg, SP, and ASL (via VASL). I own a couple dozen more games but haven't played them in years. Regarding my comments about not many units and formations, little to edit: First, I think that the current unit offerings in the base games are tolerable, but not generous. I'd be happy to pay for more units via modules but modules are very slow in coming. MikeyD has said that researching/creating the various OOBs and TO&Es in R2V almost "broke" the relevant people, and that might lead BF to further narrowing unit counts/formations in future offerings. That is why I suggest that rather than limiting unit counts even further, they could make their lives easier by not including little used formations such as anti-tank battalions, etc. and just provide their component parts (AT batteries, etc.). Finally, I have played around with the editor pretty extensively over the years; I've been waiting for the first CMRT module to really get into it, but still waiting for that.
  21. Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements. But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do... But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products. Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon! Well, yes... Not sure about that any more. While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead. While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last. And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...
  22. That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.
  23. Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses. I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone. Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units? I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy. Three separate games covering the Western Front: CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh. I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos. For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit. You leave a question yourself: why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here? I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see). Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss? Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
  24. This is more or less my position as well, although I would add that I'd like full-year weather sooner rather than later as well, and that I'm happy paying for modules with additional content rather than a patch, as long as they are provided in something like a timely fashion. As a similar matter, while CMRT features lots of units that I'd never consider using in a scenario, it does not include such items as assault rafts. The Soviets conducted many, many river crossings during Bagration and its aftermath, so their presence is missed. Yes, I understand that rafts would require oodles of new models/animations, so there is a business case against their inclusion, but I miss them nonetheless.
×
×
  • Create New...