BlackAlpha

Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?

If I wanted to know how realistic arma is I would go to arma website, search for arma info on youtube etc. Really couldn't care less when reading CMBS forums.
And again, comparing the two products, is an exercise of masochism.
 
About the real topic here, CM graphics, I also agree with coffeis4closers, if you take a look at CMSF you can note a great deal of improvements. Sure the graphics can be better, direct3d lets you have more goodies, but in the end I agree with BFC, graphics come after sim. I am one of those who would like millions pumped into BFC, dozens of artists doing 3d models, 2d graphics, dozens of programmers adding that particle effect to tracks moving etc. but the truth is BFC is what it is, and I can live with this.

Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?

Dont say that mate.
 
People dont like change around here.
 
"Ohhh I dont like change, it makes me nervous and I like to do things the way they've been done for years. Theres nothing wrong with how it is now"...

These sorts of slugfest tests are completely worthless for drawing conclusions. Increasing the number of tanks involved will not improve the data.

I did some testing and played a bunch of battles with Bradleys vs Russian T-72 and T-90A tanks. T-72 tanks don't have a jamer. T-90 tanks do have a jammer. Against the T-72 tanks, the Bradleys never missed (assuming they didn't lose line of sight). Against the T90A tanks, the Bradleys sometimes had that thing happen that the OP shows in his video (in the first post) - the missile goes way off target. So, it looks like the TOW missile can get spoofed in this game, but most of the time it does seem to hit.

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

@Steve
You can't blame people for getting annoyed when they pay money and get a horrible service experience in return. No one is to blame for that but Battlefront. After all, people pay money to you, not Amazon. You can see many people complain about the launch of the game. Don't attack your customers by ridiculing them and talking down on them, no matter how annoyed you are by their posts, that simply won't help. If you don't like it that your customers are complaining, do a better job next time.
 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly sure people are willing to forgive if you act more humble and respectful. If you don't, expect to rub more people the wrong way.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to run your PR because you've made it clear many times that no one tells you what to do, but keep in mind that people pay you good MONEY and in return they expect a good product and good service. It's perfectly reasonable for them to get annoyed and start to talk crap when you don't deliver.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to run your PR because you've made it clear many times that no one tells you what to do, but keep in mind that people pay you good MONEY and in return they expect a good product and good service. It's perfectly reasonable for them to get annoyed and start to talk crap when you don't deliver.

@Steve
You can't blame people for getting annoyed when they pay money and get a horrible service experience in return. No one is to blame for that but Battlefront. After all, people pay money to you, not Amazon. You can see many people complain about the launch of the game. Don't attack your customers by ridiculing them and talking down on them, no matter how annoyed you are by their posts, that simply won't help. If you don't like it that your customers are complaining, do a better job next time.
 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly sure people are willing to forgive if you act more humble and respectful. If you don't, expect to rub more people the wrong way.

@Steve
You can't blame people for getting annoyed when they pay money and get a horrible service experience in return. No one is to blame for that but Battlefront. After all, people pay money to you, not Amazon. You can see many people complain about the launch of the game. Don't attack your customers by ridiculing them and talking down on them, no matter how annoyed you are by their posts, that simply won't help. If you don't like it that your customers are complaining, do a better job next time.
 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly sure people are willing to forgive if you act more humble and respectful. If you don't, expect to rub more people the wrong way.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to run your PR because you've made it clear many times that no one tells you what to do, but keep in mind that people pay you good MONEY and in return they expect a good product and good service. It's perfectly reasonable for them to get annoyed and start to talk crap when you don't deliver.

@Steve
You can't blame people for getting annoyed when they pay money and get a horrible service experience in return. No one is to blame for that but Battlefront. After all, people pay money to you, not Amazon. You can see many people complain about the launch of the game. Don't attack your customers by ridiculing them and talking down on them, no matter how annoyed you are by their posts, that simply won't help. If you don't like it that your customers are complaining, do a better job next time.
 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly sure people are willing to forgive if you act more humble and respectful. If you don't, expect to rub more people the wrong way.

I think that calling in a full grad divizion salvo would essentially end the match.

Good lord what a pathetic ill informed rant.  I take away only one thing from this  Any idea to have this community more involved in the game development process is fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account the immaturity and ignorance of this community for even trivial hiccups in process.

Ditto. The AI is unable to make tactical decisions (or in gaming terms, micro), so you have to do it for them (you have to micro them) to get a somewhat realistic tactical response. A minute delay in between each tactical decision is just too long and will get people killed needlessly and slow things down too much. Maybe that was realistic in WW2 without the radios and much lower skilled soldiers, I don't know, but things are a lot more dynamic in modern warfare. Certain tactics are also simply not possible using the turn based mode because they require more micro than is possible with the turn based controls.
 
That said, the replay function in turn based mode makes it excellent for creating videos.
 
 
   
Like co-op? Yes, please!

Well, I think it may be the same as when people mention the AK-47. Sure, it has its flaws and something more modern may be better. But it still shoots bullets that hurt.
 
Basically, even older gear can be used effectively under certain conditions. As long as you stick to those conditions, the older gear can still be deadly.

Didn't you know? They take their cleanliness very seriously:
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e84_1404399153

Ahah, that explains everything. You never looked into it, you never considered it. And thus you do not know what you are talking about. Seriously, at this point you are as qualified to talk about this subject as any other person on this forum who has read the publicly available text on Steam's website.
 
Instead of people asking you to go to Steam, they need to ask you to do your research and consider it (after doing the research). And no, you will not go broke by doing this sort of research, a freaking intern can even do this sort of work. I'm not asking you to commit to anything, you simply gather all the information you need to come to an informed decision on whether you want to commit.

Ahah, that explains everything. You never looked into it, you never considered it. And thus you do not know what you are talking about. Seriously, at this point you are as qualified to talk about this subject as any other person on this forum who has read the publicly available text on Steam's website.
 
Instead of people asking you to go to Steam, they need to ask you to do your research and consider it (after doing the research). And no, you will not go broke by doing this sort of research, a freaking intern can even do this sort of work. I'm not asking you to commit to anything, you simply gather all the information you need to come to an informed decision on whether you want to commit.