Jump to content

sburke

Members
  • Content count

    15,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by sburke

  1. sburke

    Disappointed

    No problem. For what it is worth I do agree with some of your sentiments. As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations. For example drones. Interestingly conceptually but problematic for me as to how it is done. Air support in general. I could list a couple more, but the point is no I am not going to say CM is unblemished. I just adapt as frankly there isn’t anything else that even comes close for me. And I frankly love CMSF2. While I like CMBS a lot, it is the beginning of a curve where technology is altering combat just a bit much for me. I guess the same way some folks feel about CMSF who are hardcore WW2 players. CMSF for me is still a grunt’s battle. Insurgents can still take out an M1 (probably better than in real life statistically speaking) and tanks are not doing instant auto response to ATGMs. You are disappoimted as you hoped CMSF2 would somehow advance the engine beyond current 4.0 issues. I was just happy to see CMSF2 start sharing 4.0 issues and not be forever stuck in the 2007 version of CM2 Just a different starting point.
  2. sburke

    Disappointed

    Depending on circumstances. Iraq is not the same as Ukraine in terrain for example so yes it can happen at longer ranges, but it isn’t necessarily true it always will. (I noted your profile and am not about to get into a losing discussion about what folks train for for example. I know my limits ). However as a broad brush statement I think it is a very slanted view in terms of types of engagements. For example I have been doing some testing of the CMSF scenario USMC circle the wagons. It is a relatively small map, urban terrain and a gem of a scenario. Engagement ranges are the width of a street frequently. Combat in Iraq for the vast majority of engagements was not armor vs armor at 4km and up. Nor has combat in Ukraine. Can it be? Certainly I expect many of the NTC training scenarios may involve longer range engagements (though that is purely a guess on my part). all that is pointless though. As Steve noted the engine that provides the basis of what we like in our tactical sim is getting stretched the greater the map size. Sure we could give up the engine for bigger maps, but then what would be the point? We’d have big maps and we’d be complaining about how crappy the actual play was. In regard to your response to my earlier post I think you misunderstood. When I said we were pushing the envelope I meant the capabilities of the engine not the engagement ranges for an M1. CM is a tactical game that shines in the small to medium battle range. Folks who have pushed for much much bigger maps and larger forces (i’m Looking at you Ian with your 20,000 point battle) are really straining the games ability to process an enormous amount of data.
  3. sburke

    Disappointed

    Just for some clarity about some of the issues you have noted to be factually correct there is not a 4 km limitation. You can actually make a map 3km x 6km. The 4km comes from people tending to make square maps. Whether that matters in most real world situations that you would necessarily have a 4km line of sight is a whole other issue. It is a tactical game not an operational one. We push the envelope, but it isn’t what CM is meant to be nor what the code will support The graphics for CMBS are the same as for every other current CM title so why you are only disappointed in CMBS is confusing comparing other games on the market and only rating CM based on the graphics is kind of like saying my truck is nowhere near as fast as a Ferrari and therefore is not as good a vehicle. It doesn’t work so well when the main reason you bought the truck was to haul lumber. Fegardless it is is what it is. We all want more out of the game. We may eventually get more. For now we settle for what it is because the alternative is those other games with nice graphics that frankly suck compared to CM. Someday maybe we will get the best of both worlds., but in terms of the OP any expectations you had were never supported by anything BF has ever said about CMSF2 . We have been aware of that ever since they announced they would be upgrading the title. In other words, don’t rain on our parade 😁
  4. sburke

    The state of CMSF2

    Repeating what you said but just hoping to make sure Bob is clear. The entire upgrade package only applies to the modules you already own. Any modules you do not already own have to be purchased as new. So in Bobs case the full upgrade would give him the base game and the two modules he already owns. He would still need to purchase the NATO module as a new module. So $35 to upgrade everything he already owns plus the cost of the CMSF2 NATO module if he so desires. Clear as mud? 😉
  5. sburke

    Disappointed

    I did see in previous posts @Apocalypse 31that you were disappointed in CM graphics. I don’t think anyone here would disagree in the sense of always wanting something more, but the reality is compromise is a part of life. Given the size of BF to expect it to produce a tactical sim at the level of CM and beat any other graphics out there is maybe a bit much to expect. Yeah I’d love to see some more stuff like treads breaking when hitting an AT mine. Parts flying off and better wrecks on the battlefield etc etc. However 1 I think CM graphics are still pretty darn good and 2 I wouldn’t sacrifice anything on the sim side for better graphics. It is all subjective on what we value and expect but I’d have to disagree with the opinion you have expressed that somehow BF graphics are extremely substandard.
  6. sburke

    How Exciting...

    Overheard recently at my neighbors daughters birthday party. “I am so excited I am squealing like a CMSF fan upon hearing that CMSF2 is almost out!”
  7. sburke

    Disappointed

    As others noted CMSF was released in 2007. That was the first CM2 game so not sure what you mean by 1990s. In addition the models for CMSF2 are all updated to later game standards so now you are looking more at a game matching something released in 2011 and later so over a full decade from your post. Are you sure you are referring to the dame game? granted there have not been all that many yet and almost none with detail on the soldier models but if you look at screnshots for CMBS you get a better idea if that helps.
  8. sburke

    Editor Trick/hack.

    Hey not a wasted post at least from my view - I learned something I wasn't aware of so thanks!
  9. An excellent read. I went back over it when heading to Algiers for work a year or two back. Also watched Battle of Algiers again before visiting. The Milk bar - site of one of the first FLN bombings on the urban guerilla campaign in Algiers is still there. I was cautioned by the company not to venture into the Casbah in evening and my visit unfortunately was really short.
  10. sburke

    Editor Trick/hack.

    Don’t be a wet blanket, shower him with praise for attempting to divide the waters and get us to the far shore.
  11. sburke

    A long delayed update

    Hey we want to test something, can you give us a 46 million dollar engine we can destroy? Actually in the scheme of things I guess that is kind of cheap. Maybe off topic but that was very cool @Ultradave
  12. sburke

    Editor Trick/hack.

    I just gave it a try. I am with Ian and RepsolCBR. I can make the water at whatever height I desire but only at that height. For some reason I thought water was always at the lowest height of any terrain, but that is an incorrect perception. I did not have to go through the create a map and save it process. I just created a map that went from 20 to 50 and then set the water at 50 on the top of the hill. Also then created an elevated pond on a separate map. Whether that has always been true I can't say.
  13. sburke

    New forum means...

    Is that why mister unicorn has that contented creepy smile? And I just ate lunch.
  14. Documenting hearsay doesn’t make it true 😀 seriously there were undoubtedly war crimes on both sides. It is true of every war and every side. What isnt usually true is that it is as routine as you’d think from some sources in different periods.
  15. sburke

    New forum means...

    That pic is creeping me out.
  16. Yep and that makes this even more interesting. Lots of potential on this map. @Bil Hardenberger am assuming from above screenshot this is daytime?
  17. Yeah really. Next soldier “I don’t know the answer to your question, but the guy you just shot had just gotten back from the briefing with HQ”. I suspect that anecdotal story is just soldier BS. Yeah I am sure there are some incidents, but not a routine practice.
  18. That map looks VERY familiar @George MC
  19. sburke

    Editor Trick/hack.

    Damn! I think I see dams in our future
  20. redownload the game this will give you the latest version, then use the 4.0 upgrade key to activate.
  21. Ever see the Gamer's Tactical Combat system OP sheets? You can find em on Gamers archive . net. They designed exactly what you are referring to into the board game series.
  22. sburke

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    at BK we flame broil!
  23. sburke

    Thank you Olek...

    This isn't an argument. It is just a contradiction! Mr. Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid. Man: Aha! If I didn't pay, then why are you arguing? Got you! Mr. Vibrating: No you haven't. Man: Yes I have. If you're still arguing, I must have paid. Mr. Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time. Man: Oh, I've had enough of this! Mr. Vibrating: No, you haven't. Man: Oh, shut up!
  24. edit in a couple vehicles, dismount the drivers and use those as runners. Save you some guess work and also provide the opportunity that your runner doesn't make it.
  25. sburke

    CMRT Wont Load

    you aren't the first- you won't be the last.
×