Kieme(ITA)

Kieme CMBS BTR-80 1v152
 
Special thanks to BTR for providing the ideal green base textures.
 
Download: https://app.box.com/s/jqihlkiqzlb4zuvktipj8i7xie403ttn
 
Preview:

You are getting hung up on semantics. My goal was not to diminish anyone's work but to point out that for AAA title price, there was simply not enough of it. At this time I played Rus and Ukr campaigns/scenarios (don't enjoy playing NATO) to the point where they have holes in them and simply want to continue playing this great game (with your great mods btw), but there is just nothing to do. Situation reminds me of pre-Escalation Arma 3, where a great foundation was laid, but one was stuck with tumbleweeds, crickets and Persian spacemen for content.
 
And this is considered rude? Seriously? Is only praise allowed? Is this not a product that BF sells at quite a premium? If you buy a car that is missing pieces, will you sing praises to the brand engineers because they "worked hard", were short-staffed and had 5 other models to worry about? As I said before, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the current scenarios if there were more of them, but when there is so few the quality and complexity bar has to be set a lot higher. Especially when we all know from previous titles that BF can do a lot better.  

Phrases like "pure unimaginative padding hacked together in one evening" don't exactly help.

Martyrs...in the old days you burned them and that was that....in the age of the internet the victim-hood is eternal.
 
 
 
Mord.

i just want to say that i don't share your opinion that its ok to share your views/standings/opinions/decisions  on certain things and then lock the thread so that your word is last. i don't belive in publicity ,it doesnt make you 1% bigger
 
also i don't really experience your thread locking as something like ' i am owner of this place and i do what i want, i know i am right and i dont have time/nerves to argue with people who have no idea what they are talking about'
 
sure,you don't think my opinion is relevant,nor i ask for it to be relevant to you,but i wont comply,thats the bottom line
its not like we are wild ,rude,arugmentless creatures
 
wont happen, i protest, and i 'd rather be banned than comply with your policies
 
 
Sebastian Lacroix is Not approving
 
 

Definitely true, you will never make some complainers happy, because they are only as long as they can complain. And guess, what, if single soldier placing was there, they would complain for "too much micromanagement"

Same here.

You should grow some skin, we are simply discussing. One thing is to positively say something true, another is to make up things and bash for no reason. Like linking the number of FPS with the system requirements posted officially.

I have no problem with reality, that is 25 to 35 FPS with a large scenario and a tank battalion on it.
Never said anything different.
 
What I really don't like is people like you who write things like "battlefront believes", or made up things like "system requirements suggest". You can't speak for Other people or BFC company, unless you have an ego so large that lets you conmfortably rest on a throne while writing on BFC forums.

Another thing you say, nice to see that you tend to infer information only you compute out of system requirements of a software + you speak for other people of a software producting company.
 
The game can be optimized even more, the engine can be improved in so many ways, but when people like you start making up stuff from personal experience of any sort, or blindly say what's the standard CM games should be for their own personal superior sake is a general behaviour that disgust me.

You should grow some skin, we are simply discussing. One thing is to positively say something true, another is to make up things and bash for no reason. Like linking the number of FPS with the system requirements posted officially.

I have no problem with reality, that is 25 to 35 FPS with a large scenario and a tank battalion on it.
Never said anything different.
 
What I really don't like is people like you who write things like "battlefront believes", or made up things like "system requirements suggest". You can't speak for Other people or BFC company, unless you have an ego so large that lets you conmfortably rest on a throne while writing on BFC forums.

You should keep that for yourself. What makes you think you are entitled to such kind of generalization???
I enjoy multiplayer a lot, but also the campaigns and single missions. CMSF nato campaign is an act of beauty (and I personally enjoyed the british one too), not to mention CMBS campaigns.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it's a useless thing or something people don't like.
 
The good part is that BFC will keep making them in future titles, so I belive most of the user base likes them.

You should keep that for yourself. What makes you think you are entitled to such kind of generalization???
I enjoy multiplayer a lot, but also the campaigns and single missions. CMSF nato campaign is an act of beauty (and I personally enjoyed the british one too), not to mention CMBS campaigns.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it's a useless thing or something people don't like.
 
The good part is that BFC will keep making them in future titles, so I belive most of the user base likes them.

You should keep that for yourself. What makes you think you are entitled to such kind of generalization???
I enjoy multiplayer a lot, but also the campaigns and single missions. CMSF nato campaign is an act of beauty (and I personally enjoyed the british one too), not to mention CMBS campaigns.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it's a useless thing or something people don't like.
 
The good part is that BFC will keep making them in future titles, so I belive most of the user base likes them.

Does Germany still use conscription? 
 
So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you

Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS
 

As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it?
 
I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then?

That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS.

There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game?

So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game
 

Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it.
 

Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

Sure GTOS and other games have a stuff that CM doesn't have, and some stuff they do better. But OVER ALL, CMx2 beats them all hands down. As an example you cant be lacking in infantry combat the way GTOS does and take on CM. Doesnt matter if you have flares for night fighting. Sure its a nice edition that I hope we will see in CM one day but its not a game breaker that unrealistic/undetailed infantry combat is. The realism and ToEs and ToOs CM has is unrivaled and with the editor you can pretty much portray any battle.  
 
CM is not perfect and it is ever evolving. Saying it has not had progress for 8 years is just ignorant and statements like that will naturally be challenged.  

Of course CMSF runs better than CMBS, there are simpler models (in terms of damage calculation), no shaders and generally less detailed maps.
But if you bought CMSF in the first day it was released you should remember how terrible was the optimization (allah's fist?).
 
Now I can run CMSF/RT very smoothly (much better computer than 7 years ago), and even crank up texture sizes like I did.
But I also hope there will be multi-core support in the future. (this will also lead to more stuff to be implemented)
 
 
Finally, comparing CM games to blockbusters with hundreds of millions Worth Investments is Always a wrong way to deal with the subject, those titles are streamlined to be usable even by different platforms.

Sorry but that tells me that you are a unconvincible CMx2 fanboy.
You are unable to accept the fact that "Mius Front" has some great features...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGv5QYmQT0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvjgWqPBis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQA5-VWVXU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eCET3VCztU

If you would have said that you wish CM had some of those features but still think CMx2 looks overall better or something i would accept that, but to say "i'm not one bit impressed...when compared to CM..." is just a joke.
Guys watch the videos and then think again, he said "i'm not one bit impressed...when compared to CM..." !

...and what just made me fall of my chair is that you said "The shadowing seems far inferior to CM..."...wow, shows me how abnormal your connection to CMx2 is.
Really, please stay realistic at least.

Indeed but Ken and Vin have created something worth discussing so riff off of that.

Thanks a lot!
I have made an upload.
The image to be attached was winrared too, was that right?
 

I never said CM needs to be perfect.
Its only about the lack of progress since CMSF, 8 years and no big step forward, no game changing new feature, no new level of realism for one of the best wargame series ever...that makes me sad and angry because i suspect BFC became lazy somehow.
If i look at the improvements GTOS got through the latest patch alone or the Mius Front videos...
Its not about being perfect...its about progress !
I dont want BFC to become the next JTS !

GTOS infantry is worse than cmx1 and that ruins the game completely for me. Infantry is the most important aspect in a tactical ww2 game imo. It cant be compared with cmx2 at all if you ask me.

Bulge will contain more stuff than you list waclaw, wait and see.

Well, not an easy task to make a list without SF installed anymore. But IIRC there's a Whole bounch: what comes to my mind are the independent buildings and quite a number of options for the walls/fences, both in terms of type and shapes available.Many more flavor objects types have been introduced in later games too. Also, UAV, APS, precision arty, amphibious vehicles, electronic warfare, are all interesting additions. In terms of graphics, normal maps for vehicles, troops and buildings were not available to CMSF, as well as the Shaders.
 
Flame weapons are available also to CM Normandy with the vehicle pack if I am not mistaken.