Ithikial_AU Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 On 11/12/2016 at 10:17 AM, sburke said: My point about Steve already having a list is, it is Steve's list. Not ours. I am sure there is plenty of overlap, but I have a strong suspicion that Steve long ago tuned out ideas coming from us if for no other reason than we are really repetitive. Not to mention the vast bulk of us probably have no connection to the IT industry and don't know a thing about what our ideas equal in terms of programming/resourcing implications. I admit (as one of those forum guys who's posted ideas here before) I've felt sorry for the BF team in the past reading through some of the threads since most don't have any thoughts on how there idea would be implemented. I get the same thing in my job when managing our economic research projects or even from ad-hoc requests with the questioner having no grasp on what is actually possible. "We want this and this and this and this, oh and is it possible to cross reference by that." (And my team gets complaints when we say no - funny that!) All projects have to start somewhere and the 'ideas phase' can be a lot of fun, but those that leave the 'ideas phase' open too long are destined to never get there project completed on time/budget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niall78 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said: Not to mention the vast bulk of us probably have no connection to the IT industry and don't know a thing about what our ideas equal in terms of programming/resourcing implications. I admit (as one of those forum guys who's posted ideas here before) I've felt sorry for the BF team in the past reading through some of the threads since most don't have any thoughts on how there idea would be implemented. I get the same thing in my job when managing our economic research projects or even from ad-hoc requests with the questioner having no grasp on what is actually possible. "We want this and this and this and this, oh and is it possible to cross reference by that." (And my team gets complaints when we say no - funny that!) All projects have to start somewhere and the 'ideas phase' can be a lot of fun, but those that leave the 'ideas phase' open too long are destined to never get there project completed on time/budget. I'm sure BF aren't feeling much pressure from the talk on this forum. Meanwhile it is vital for small niche companies to be 'in touch' with their fans in this day and age. To have no forum of ideas from fans or no interaction with those fans would be disastrous. Before the internet companies spent a fortune trying to engage their customer bases in all industries - now they can get engagement for free with a little effort. Companies that don't engage actually cede that advantage and give it to third parties. Their customer base's major contact point with them is now through a nearly uncontrollable and unaccountable third party. I don't think we see too many crazy ideas in general on this forum anyway. This is more a fun dream thread - I'm not really expecting BF to release a CM:Battletech. Other things like fire, better defensive works implementation and other tweaks that are frequently mentioned or new time periods or settings are much more achievable aims in the mid to long term. BF hearing this is no bad thing. It's up to them to then prioritize these customer ideas with their own ideas and the resources they have available. Edited December 13, 2016 by niall78 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 14 hours ago, sburke said: Why the US? As an example. Agree that gambling and other forms of addiction are human and not national traits, although certain forms can be more popular in given locales than others. For instance, I suspect that cocaine and methamphetamine are far more popular in the industrialized West than in more agrarian societies. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Interestingly while meth has really taken grip in most of the US in the NE corridor from NYC through Boston its the same old thing its always been coke and heroin. meths been around years but never got big outside the gay community. The heroin is a MAJOR problem in Boston though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 11 hours ago, niall78 said: ...This is more a fun dream thread - I'm not really expecting BF to release a CM:Battletech. Awww come on! Keep the dream alive!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Sublime said: meths been around years but never got big outside the gay community. Your memory is too short. Meth has always been big among biker gangs and was popular among some hippies during the '60s, although anathema among others. But we have wandered waaaaaaaay off-topic. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorJerkov Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 (edited) That would be amazing! Somebody needs to get to work on that ! Edited December 14, 2016 by MajorJerkov Flub 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Michael Emrys said: Your memory is too short. Meth has always been big among biker gangs and was popular among some hippies during the '60s, although anathema among others. But we have wandered waaaaaaaay off-topic. Michael Oh i know. Pervitin in 3rd Reich ( sorta ) benzedrine (sorta) But my memory isnt too short you old bastid i wasnt born until 85 lmao! I may like the song mothers lil helper but i wasnt even a twinkle for decades after it. But yes youre absolutely right. Just interestingly its never caught on in yhe NE corridor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Sublime said: Just interestingly its never caught on in yhe NE corridor It crops up sporadically in the PNW. Never really seems to go away. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 No the rest of america its a major problem. Even fashion wise bostons stuck in the 90s lol shelltoe adidas have been in style since the early 80z 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank24 Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Interesting Topic. So what is a game I like and one which has the potential to be a winner at the economic side? It should have balanced adversaries, play over a wide variation of different terrain, should be concerned more with tactics than technology, and should present many different vehicles, systems and forces. Just two come to my mind: Ostfront 1942/43, with balanced forces, all terrain mother russia offers in summer heat or freezing winter, tactics as we all know it already (or would never use), a wide array of forces involved. Endless opportunities for interesting Scenarios: huge tank clashes, the cut at the shoulder of an intrusion of the front, partisans to paratroopers, city fighting, oh my. Fulda Gap in the seventies to eighties. Again balanced forces, terrain from the beaches of the Baltic, north German plain, the rolling hills of the Fulda area, down to the bavarian mountains. Equipment and tactics from more than ten different nations. And not too much technology to overwhelm tactics. These two would be an automatic buy for me. North Africa would be nice, too but lacks the variation in terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Guys, Thought you might find this of keen interest. It's a 2007 Jane's article about tests conducted right after the Cold War (I've reported on some harrowing ones from pre-1985) which showed how truly screwed the US and NATO were vs Russian armor protection. https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23308.aspx#startofcomments Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Ruddd Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, John Kettler said: Guys, Thought you might find this of keen interest. It's a 2007 Jane's article about tests conducted right after the Cold War (I've reported on some harrowing ones from pre-1985) which showed how truly screwed the US and NATO were vs Russian armor protection. https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23308.aspx#startofcomments Regards, John Kettler I remember that report from the 1990's, don't have alink now, but I seem to recall an article/report (TV news?) that the M829 DU rounds were defective, they had a chance to shatter upon impact. Argument was the test was rigged so more money would be expended..... you know, over inflate the threat. /shrug Douglas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Douglas Ruddd, After what was briefed to us at the 1985 SOVIET THREAT TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE on the armor/anti-armor situation by the CIA's top SMEs, the whole auditorium went silent, followed by gasps, choking sounds, etc. I truly thought they were going to haul people out from heart attacks and such. What we were told was traumatic, since it upset everything most of us knew or thought we knew on the matter. I had a bit of a leg up, for I was aware to a small degree of the SECRET level Defense Science Board's Armor/Anti-armor Summer Study, but that was as nothing compared to the full rundown we got at Langley. The DSB study used the latest and best Army 105 mm round, which was experimental and DU, and even it couldn't frontally penetrate an ERA equipped T-72. This was when the Abrams in the field still had the L7A1 105 mm gun. Kontakt-5 was specifically designed to defeat long rod penetrators by applying shearing forces to relatively thin rods, so this may've been the problem, rather than rigged tests. Also, tests have a way of embarrassing the testers, in that the wholly unexpected may well occur, then have to be painstakingly analyzed to determine and correct the cause. Nor is rigging a test unheard of, as I've shown repeatedly. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Ruddd Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, John Kettler said: Douglas Ruddd, After what was briefed to us at the 1985 SOVIET THREAT TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE on the armor/anti-armor situation by the CIA's top SMEs, the whole auditorium went silent, followed by gasps, choking sounds, etc. I truly thought they were going to haul people out from heart attacks and such. What we were told was traumatic, since it upset everything most of us knew or thought we knew on the matter. I had a bit of a leg up, for I was aware to a small degree of the SECRET level Defense Science Board's Armor/Anti-armor Summer Study, but that was as nothing compared to the full rundown we got at Langley. The DSB study used the latest and best Army 105 mm round, which was experimental and DU, and even it couldn't frontally penetrate an ERA equipped T-72. This was when the Abrams in the field still had the L7A1 105 mm gun. Kontakt-5 was specifically designed to defeat long rod penetrators by applying shearing forces to relatively thin rods, so this may've been the problem, rather than rigged tests. Also, tests have a way of embarrassing the testers, in that the wholly unexpected may well occur, then have to be painstakingly analyzed to determine and correct the cause. Nor is rigging a test unheard of, as I've shown repeatedly. Regards, John Kettler John, I was refering to the 120mm DU rounds being defective, was aware of the problems with the 105mm rounds. From what I have read on the machining of DU, it does not take much to cause microscopic cracks, may have been known they were bad, or may not have. Gonna search tomorrow on Google, providing my Google-Fu is up to snuff..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Douglas Ruddd, Microscopic cracks are the bane of all things high performance. With the sorts of dynamic loads we're talking about from smashing the M829A2's long rod penetrator into Kontakt-5 and then composite armor, I can well believe the tiniest manufacturing defect could cause the penetrator to break up. Did some digging and came up with this great video on Kontakt-5. It includes live fire test footage. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 7, 2017 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arpella72 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 My preferences will go to North Africa 1941-42 and 1943 Tunisia as well.Lots of interesting battles and it could include the German invasion of Crete(Operation Mercury) as an expansion. Out of the IIWW stuff I will go to the Israel-Arab countries wars(Six days,Yom Kippur).Lots of interesting features for all the CM gamers: lots of tanks with a mix of modern and vintage vehicles,Israeli airborne troops,Egyptian engineers and assault troops,etc.Korea wouldn't be bad but I'm not interested in any asymetrical war or guerrilla warfare (Afganistan or,in a lesser extent Vietnam). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armorgunner Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Different cold war go hot scenarios, 1945, the 50´s, 60´s, 70´s and the 80´s. All of them would be nice in CM engine. And obvious early WW2. Hmm I think everything that´s not in CM as of today, would be interesting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 On 7-3-2017 at 2:40 AM, John Kettler said: Guys, Thought you might find this of keen interest. It's a 2007 Jane's article about tests conducted right after the Cold War (I've reported on some harrowing ones from pre-1985) which showed how truly screwed the US and NATO were vs Russian armor protection. https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23308.aspx#startofcomments Regards, John Kettler I'm speechless. Really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Yes, but SU only had Kontakt-5 on tiny percentage of armored force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armorgunner Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 On 2017-03-07 at 2:40 AM, John Kettler said: Guys, Thought you might find this of keen interest. It's a 2007 Jane's article about tests conducted right after the Cold War (I've reported on some harrowing ones from pre-1985) which showed how truly screwed the US and NATO were vs Russian armor protection. https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23308.aspx#startofcomments Regards, John Kettler That is really interesting reading. I know Sweden had threat tank 1-8. Where threat tank 7 (T-7) was the T-72A. T-8 was the T-80U. After the cold war ended, Sweden bought 5 T-72M1 from Germany. And found out that our T-7 was almost identical to that. The T-72M1 had slightely better protection than the T-7 analysis. The T-80U we tested for an long period of time in 1994 in Sweden. So we have comprehensive knowledge of that one to 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Armorgunner, Most interesting. Were your tanks bare or fitted with Kontakt-5? Regarding the T-80U, do you mean all kinds of tests, live fire tests, both or some other thing, please? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armorgunner Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, John Kettler said: Armorgunner, Most interesting. Were your tanks bare or fitted with Kontakt-5? Regarding the T-80U, do you mean all kinds of tests, live fire tests, both or some other thing, please? Regards, John Kettler This is without Google translate, so beware of bad spelling. Yes and no The T-80U had k5 era kit. And in 1994 the Cold war was over, and would never ever accore again. The Russian company that Made the T-80U was att the state of bankrupcy att the time. And was more than helpfull to give details than the Swedish delegation was ever hopefull of when getting over there. There where no fhoto restictions what so ever in the factory, or in the tanks. And info of the tank was very open. There was not a problem att all, to loan att tank for comprehensive tests. The T-80U was nerver a candidate for the heavy armured brigades. But for the somewhatt lighter mechanised brigades. At the same time the Leopard 2i, Leclerc, and The M1a2 was battleing out as contenders for the armoured brigades. When the Swedish goverment Made att deal with Germany of new Leopard 2i tanks for the armoured brigades. The deal allso inclouded a lease of 160 used Leopard 2a4 for the mechanised brigades. And The goverment ordered the military to stop the tests att the T-80U and sending it back to Russia. Under heavy protests from The military, as the tests of the armoured modules was about to start. All the cross country tests was done att that time. Thanks to the helpfullines of the eager to sell Russians and a fast look of the military to verify the Russian information. Before sending the tanks back to Russia, we could make Swedish Made k5 modules to test fire against att a later point. The same goes for the Base armor of the tank, at least the turret armor. The hull armor i have no info of being tested. although it probably was. I hope this responds to your question John Edited March 9, 2017 by Armorgunner Bad spelling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) On 8/3/2017 at 8:01 PM, arpella72 said: My preferences will go to North Africa 1941-42 and 1943 Tunisia as well.Lots of interesting battles and it could include the German invasion of Crete(Operation Mercury) as an expansion. Out of the IIWW stuff I will go to the Israel-Arab countries wars(Six days,Yom Kippur).Lots of interesting features for all the CM gamers: lots of tanks with a mix of modern and vintage vehicles,Israeli airborne troops,Egyptian engineers and assault troops,etc.Korea wouldn't be bad but I'm not interested in any asymetrical war or guerrilla warfare (Afganistan or,in a lesser extent Vietnam). Exactly my mind, would like to see...new units in Creta Greece, New Zeland Australia ...we have already Great Britain German and Italian...something new. ...would like to see in action Chifftain Centurion M48 super sherman ...Golan Heights...1948 1967 1973 ponton bridges from Suez Canal...Egypt Jordanian army and more vehicles after the ww2...lile I said, something new... Edited March 9, 2017 by 3j2m7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It must be a huge problem for BF to come up with anything people would consider really new and exciting to play over a period of time. All the WW2 CM2 games play almost the same. How many new games does one play just cos there are a half-down new vehicles, or a new uniform for a new nationality? CMSF, CMBS and CMA are still welcome for variety. But am finding myself getting burned out faster and faster with each new WW2 release. It was cool in CM1 to play from the invasion of Poland onwards. But, of course we can't do that now. We'll probably have to wait for a new game system, CM3, to arrive and be a revolutionary step forward as CMSF was after CM1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.