Jump to content

Mattis

Members
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Vehicle reaction time   
    Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.
    Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.
    Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.
    To visualize this:
    There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).
    Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.
    They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.
    Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.
    Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.
  2. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from DMS in Vehicle reaction time   
    Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.
    Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.
    Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.
    To visualize this:
    There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).
    Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.
    They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.
    Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.
    Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.
  3. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Vehicle reaction time   
    Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.
    Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.
    Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.
    To visualize this:
    There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).
    Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.
    They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.
    Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.
    Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.
  4. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from Kaunitz in Vehicle reaction time   
    Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.
    Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.
    Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.
    To visualize this:
    There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).
    Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.
    They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.
    Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.
    Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.
  5. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Vehicle reaction time   
    He definitely knows what he is talking about, which is a rare trait in the internet.
    Also there is no reason instantly start fiddling around with your stopwatch just because you´ve seen a random Steel Beasts video. It is perhaps the most definitive tank simulation but still far from reality, at least the version for the private sector.
    For example a military grade joystick may give better results than a lagging mouse simulating this joystick, also the override... I think it isn´t potrayed completely correctly but damn close. Then imagine a fellow that probably spent countles hours with a virtual simulator, in the life tank with sim equipment, and then in life fire excercises.
    Beside this not all tank features especially newer inventions and confidental ones are represented in Steel Beasts L2A4, C2, and the other tanks there.
    Furthermore most commanders wouldn´t call out a slow HEAT round for a >2k meters moving APC target like SB´s AI does there but just stick to the high velocity KE-based rounds like APFSDS. You hear occasionally stories about the danger of overpenetration without causing any damage but these people have no clue. Hits are highly likely mission kills. Yes it will overpenetrate but you and your friends inside that APC definitely will notice when a 120mm KE says hello when passing by and you´ll consider twice if you continue your journey if you´re even in the state then to do so.
  6. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Vehicle reaction time   
    Like already stated gunners when instructed or in case of direct danger can open fire without permission. Triggering the laser range finder gives you normally an instant result and manual or computerized lead for moving targets also is adjusted pretty fast or in most cases (especially the short engagement ranges of CM) not even needed due to the high velocity of the rounds.
    An further possibility that may contribute to the speed is that some of the modern Western battle tanks (not sure about other vehicles and don´t know about Russian) also have an override function that in case enemy contact allows the gunner or commander to instantly slew the turret/cupola of the other crew member to his bearing. In most cases this happens when the commander spots and target and then slews the gunners turret towards the target. Taking into consideration that both crew members are likely looking towards the expected enemy contact this form of target aquisition takes not even a second.
    Further account goes to the fact that CM assumes that most Western vehicles in the theatre have superior technology in comparsion to the Soviet/Russian vehicles and also simulates highly likely superior Coalition crew training when compared to their Syrian crews.
  7. Upvote
    Mattis reacted to Snake726 in They meant september of next year!   
    Perhaps you're conflating understanding with doing - it is the case that this is the law, it is not the case that anyone is suing. Reading comprehension: it's great, try it out.

    Oh wow - threatened by no discount. Perhaps such a tiny company should be worried about customers purchasing their content, and their fragile customers should not be so worried about upsetting the big boss for fear of losing a discount. How did business become this sycophantic and servile?
  8. Upvote
    Mattis reacted to Snake726 in They meant september of next year!   
    You seem incapable of understanding that I didn't listen to you?

    It's not my concern that you don't care about proof, and I'm sure that you've studied up on American mercantile law. If you were as studious as you are obnoxious, you'd be ready to give me a real run for my money.
  9. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Ghost of Charlemagne in They meant september of next year!   
    While there is certainly some overreaction going on about the late demo and release here that surely won´t benefit anybody but this isn´t even the part that annoys me so much.
    After following this thread and skimming trough many recent I must say what definitely annoys me is the fact that most suggestions and ALL negative feedback , no matter if it is about Battlefront or related to the Combat Mission games itself, no matter if it is valid and very well thought out, no matter if the author invested his time into it, it is always compromised in a perfidious way by the same two, three overbearing forum members to such an extent that productive effort is almost impossible to be made or the thread is turned into a goofy trolling space.
    It is like if a forum police is going around here 24/7 looking for instantly shutting down anything that is too progressive or could be perceived as criticism in the slightest possible way. Frankly I can´t remember ever have seen such a severe case of that before and I´ve been to alot game or sim forums. If you guys´ believe you´re helping the devs with that, you surely do not.
  10. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from The Steppenwulf in They meant september of next year!   
    While there is certainly some overreaction going on about the late demo and release here that surely won´t benefit anybody but this isn´t even the part that annoys me so much.
    After following this thread and skimming trough many recent I must say what definitely annoys me is the fact that most suggestions and ALL negative feedback , no matter if it is about Battlefront or related to the Combat Mission games itself, no matter if it is valid and very well thought out, no matter if the author invested his time into it, it is always compromised in a perfidious way by the same two, three overbearing forum members to such an extent that productive effort is almost impossible to be made or the thread is turned into a goofy trolling space.
    It is like if a forum police is going around here 24/7 looking for instantly shutting down anything that is too progressive or could be perceived as criticism in the slightest possible way. Frankly I can´t remember ever have seen such a severe case of that before and I´ve been to alot game or sim forums. If you guys´ believe you´re helping the devs with that, you surely do not.
  11. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Aragorn2002 in They meant september of next year!   
    While there is certainly some overreaction going on about the late demo and release here that surely won´t benefit anybody but this isn´t even the part that annoys me so much.
    After following this thread and skimming trough many recent I must say what definitely annoys me is the fact that most suggestions and ALL negative feedback , no matter if it is about Battlefront or related to the Combat Mission games itself, no matter if it is valid and very well thought out, no matter if the author invested his time into it, it is always compromised in a perfidious way by the same two, three overbearing forum members to such an extent that productive effort is almost impossible to be made or the thread is turned into a goofy trolling space.
    It is like if a forum police is going around here 24/7 looking for instantly shutting down anything that is too progressive or could be perceived as criticism in the slightest possible way. Frankly I can´t remember ever have seen such a severe case of that before and I´ve been to alot game or sim forums. If you guys´ believe you´re helping the devs with that, you surely do not.
  12. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in They meant september of next year!   
    While there is certainly some overreaction going on about the late demo and release here that surely won´t benefit anybody but this isn´t even the part that annoys me so much.
    After following this thread and skimming trough many recent I must say what definitely annoys me is the fact that most suggestions and ALL negative feedback , no matter if it is about Battlefront or related to the Combat Mission games itself, no matter if it is valid and very well thought out, no matter if the author invested his time into it, it is always compromised in a perfidious way by the same two, three overbearing forum members to such an extent that productive effort is almost impossible to be made or the thread is turned into a goofy trolling space.
    It is like if a forum police is going around here 24/7 looking for instantly shutting down anything that is too progressive or could be perceived as criticism in the slightest possible way. Frankly I can´t remember ever have seen such a severe case of that before and I´ve been to alot game or sim forums. If you guys´ believe you´re helping the devs with that, you surely do not.
  13. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Daveoreno in The state of CMSF2   
    You did a wonderful job in commenting every part of my comment that wasn´t that significant but somehow missed the keystone:
    "I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all. "
    What are your thoughts on this?
    Mattis
  14. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Daveoreno in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  15. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  16. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Aragorn2002 in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  17. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from Artkin in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  18. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from Bulletpoint in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  19. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from LukeFF in The state of CMSF2   
    I am pretty new to this forum but must also admit that despite all the hardships that Battlefront must face as a small developer, certain aspects of their communication policy is somewhat that I personally wouldn´t commend.
    I am fine with release dates that don´t get met, it is a hard thing to do to predict completion and future obstacles and we all surely don´t want Battlefront to lower their quality standards by leaving bugs unattended or by cutting features just to met the date, like many triple A devs do these days.
    So normally it wouldn´t be a big deal for me when the first announcement date on end of July wasn´t achieved due to unexpected holidays of personnel. However I see no real excuse (feel free to correct me here) that we weren´t informed before the 31st of July. I am pretty sure that the information that end of July won´t see a release was available to the devs way earlier than that so why not take some seconds an post a simple: " Due to the temporal unavailability of crucial staff we unfortunately won´t see a release in End of July but still need some more weeks before release, we will keep you updated, thanks for your support." In my opinion this is the most obvious way to handle this situation. either way its definitely better than just letting a release date passing by with no communication at all.
    Sure for me there was not much lost despite some wasted time doing bf website checks for release info. However I still perceived this behavior as somewhat disprespectful.
    I am certainly sure many will disagree here with this perception with is totally fine so please don´t flip the master arm already and lets keep things civil. Especially because I still support Battlefront as one of the few developers bringing us one of the most authentic wargames ever made and wish them best luck with the upcoming release.
    Mattis 
  20. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Hello   
    Registration on this forum was for several months not possible but looks like it finally got fixed.
    So hi there, 1st post, very excited for Shock Force 2.
    Mattis
  21. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from George MC in Hello   
    Registration on this forum was for several months not possible but looks like it finally got fixed.
    So hi there, 1st post, very excited for Shock Force 2.
    Mattis
  22. Upvote
    Mattis got a reaction from HerrTom in Hello   
    Registration on this forum was for several months not possible but looks like it finally got fixed.
    So hi there, 1st post, very excited for Shock Force 2.
    Mattis
  23. Like
    Mattis got a reaction from Pete Wenman in Hello   
    Registration on this forum was for several months not possible but looks like it finally got fixed.
    So hi there, 1st post, very excited for Shock Force 2.
    Mattis
×
×
  • Create New...