So, who's disappointed?

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

[QB]

The Stryker is a very new weapon system at the beginning of it's life cycle (e.g. the Initial Impression report is form December 2004 and based on 4 weeks of combat, there might be more info but I couldn't do a longer search). I seems therefore that the weapon system is "work in progress". A Stryker in 2007 might be a quite different weapon. If CM:SF was a 2005 setting I'd be more pleased (it's not too late to change that ). Oops I use the word 'pleased' :eek: .

Hehe, well look at it this way....the Stryker has been in combat for over a year now and as mentioned is based on a design that has been in production for over a decade. As such, in theory, the Styker give us a more solid base to work on from a simulation perspective than the King Tiger did ! Im not kidding when I say that, either.

Many of the vehicles we modelled in the CMx1 series were actually considerbaly more rarely used and produced in comparison to the Stryker and thus have much less information available on, so in all honesty we should be able to give a more solid account of its capabilites than those vehicles!

Just a different perspective to look at it from

Dan

[Scipio]

I'm German. I don't like the US politics of today, and I don't like the US president. Who cares?

But I don't mind playing US forces in a game. I loved Operation Flashpoint, just because it was a great game. However, I would prefer to have a Syrian campaign, too, but on the other hand, since I play 99% vs human players, and I guess campaigns will be playable only vs the AI, who cares?

But I really would be happy to see a module with European forces instead of a USMC module. Just because I really would like to see something different than always the same US equipment. LeopardIIA6 or all the stuff I have seen in my military service, or Challengers or French equipment of which I even don't known the names.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Can you really compare the early 6 wheel designs with the LAV family?

Michael after looking at 100's of photos of the different versions I can tell you from a 3D modelling perspective the 2 are very very similar! I was suprsied how close they were to be honest...I suspect that from a very basic perspective one is just a lenghtened version of the other. Cant say so from a technical perspective though

Dan

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

First, I said "from where I stand". Second, please don't put words into my mouth. If I had thought there was a corporate conspiracy on the part of BFI to crank out low-quality mass appeal games, trust me, I would have spelled that out. Third, I don't think my post is demeaning to you or your company. If you took it that way, you have my apologies.

You guys in my opinion already made the best wargame ever, as I have made very clear in years of posting.

I certainly don't like your choice of topic for the next version of CM, but life will go on. It's just a friggen' computer game, after all. I am mature enough to wait for a game/module based on history.

Now for my opinion. In my opinion, land warfare wargamers and "grogs" particularly are most interested in history, especially the WW2, U.S. Civil War, Napoleonic, and possibly the ancient eras. Those are the mass-appeal subject areas to wargamers, the "grogs" we all know and love. (Well, most of us.)

A notional U.S. war in Syria doesn't match those subject areas. So, a game about that notional war is not so appealing, to the group I call "grogs". That's my opinion and I fully respect BFI's right to a have a different opinion, which very possibly is far better informed than mine.

BFI clearly thinks lots of wargamers and grogs will be turned on by CMSF. I don't, particularly. So we disagree. See, the world didn't end!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But from where I stand military history and wargaming has taken a back seat to mass appeal, especially to the U.S. market. In effect, BFI has effectively decided it can sell more games to friends and fans of the modern U.S. military, than it can to an international audience of military history grogs and wargamers.

I really wish people wouldn't disguise their dislike and ignorance of our decision making process as some sort of Grand Conspiracy theory. We did not choose CM:SF for its mass appeal characteristics any more than we chose the second game to be WWII for similar or opposite reasons. Sure, we picked something that wouldn't likely have us flipping burgers 6 months post release, but that was true for all the previous CM titles. The only differnce here is some people don't like our choice of topics. That's fine and expected, but enough already with the conspiracy theories and demeaning language. It really makes such people look rather selfish and irrational, not to mention grossly unfair.

Steve </font>

[Jaws]

Wake me up when the WW2 version of CM X2. 2 years of waiting for nothing. I followed the discussions and told myself it would be worth waiting.

Respect to your choice. I hope you will not lose you’re WW2 community.

But the good news after 2 years of waiting is… we can look forward towards a very good WW2 sim in about 2 to 3 years from now.

[Thin Red Line]

I'm rather disappointed by the setting. But i'll probably buy the new Battlefront game anyway...

... Les Grognards

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

I would have thought that it was more like 1 in 200 or 2000 for us Aussies and other CW dominion Countries.

BTW I don't no the words to the Australian National Anthum, I can't get past the "Our land is girt by sea", line nor get over it, hehe.

But then again that is the definition of how a patriotic an Aussie ought to be on the matter of singing let alone knowing those words to be sure.

Hehe, I cant argue with you there!

But yes, 1:200 or even 1:2000 probably isnt far off for our representation in war game even though our guys played a reasonable part in WW2, particually in the pacific. I do understand though that that part of the conflict isnt something everyone or even many would like to play in a wargame, and as such I am happy to play other forces from a different perspective, just for the tactical challange .

Dan

[roqf77]

goodbye and goodnight, loooks like cmak is the last battlefront game i will buy.

Ey:sa it is then.

[IDILIX]

can we play as a NATO member ? or one of the NATO members ? Is the Kurdish PKK and Hizboullah simulated ? Can we take these guys and play them against a Nato Member ?

Just some ideas which pop into my mind...

However,I still find it hard to believe in 'well trained and equipped syrian forces'. Space Lobsters seem more likely...

( now that would be something )

[Kwazydog]

Roq, no worries, but from your response I guess that you dont care to take us up on the offer to comment on those other companies that offer SO MUCH more than we for the same dollar then?

Ill assume from common sense that EYSA aint what you were referring too earlier cause it took what, 3 games in total to get the Brits into a somewhat 'stable' environment after the US without odd results happening every second battle, (and yes, I know what I am referring too cause Ive bought them all).

As we have already mentioned though we do understand that the current theatre isnt everything everyone as we are sorry that it isnt to your liking. Of course we hope that you find our future games of interest.

Dan

[ October 09, 2005, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Hortlund]

After giving this some thought, Im coming around to this game.

Some reasons.

1) The physics engine will have to be able to handle stuff like two-punch ATGMs vs reactive armor and ATGMs who constantly "re-aims" for the target. If you get that to work, then its gonna be easy to dumb it down to an "aim once and see if you hit" solid AP shot, and a panzerfaust vs face hardened armor. In other words, by doing it that complex and detailed now, they are saving time/effort for the ww2 game.

2) There are no good modern tactical wargames.

3) It will be fun to play as a US company commander in a modern and actual setting. After a couple of modules when(if?) the civilians are included, I think it will lead to a higher understanding of the reality on the ground in a country not so far away from Syria. To me, that is about as high praise a wargame can get...if it gives you a new understanding about what the reality looks like/looked like.

4) I recommend this blog for anyone looking for a mood-setting.

http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com/

The blog is by a guy who was been embedded with a Stryker Brigade around Mosul for something like a year. It is well worth the read.

[ October 09, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Guest Stuart J. Vincent]

I'm looking forward to the demo, if i like it I'll buy the game, if I don't I'll wait for the WWII one and carry on playing CMBB and CMAK in the mean time. After all its a game, it not like my life depends on it...

[roqf77]

look krazy dog, im more upset about steve's replies than anything else.

Ill restate what i said.

1. IM INTERESTED IN THE GAME!(it is to my liking, i have been waiting for a current non command and conquer clone, modern rts for a while actualy)

2. but limited units and sides turns me off a little.(doesnt have to be british or even ww2)

3. Not spending 50-60 quid on one game from anyone(unless its amazing, id need proof first).

I am going to get the demo, and give it a try and from your track record im sure it will be good.

Again i meant no personal insult to either of you, especialy steve. I have enjoyed cm1 games (all 3 of them).

Games i was refering to were well there's to many to list but here's a short one of the top of my head.(The entire total war series, coduo(fps i know, but only 1 exspansion total cost under 50 quid, evil genius no exspansion and cost under 50 quid, ghost recon 1 exspansion and cost under 50 quid and so on and so on).

[Kwazydog]

Roq, I do understand where you are coming from...all I am suggesting is that you could please understand that adding just one unit to CMx2 is far more complex than you may think and far more complex than adding it to a game such as Total War, even EYSA or whatever (at least any game that I can think of), especially as the models alone take considerably longer to amke.

We can literally take weeks to resarch the details of just one vehicle we wish to add to a game for instance, and I can honestly tell you that its no easy task, even from a purely visual persective without taking into account the details of armor from different angles, weapons, ammo loadout, engine capacity, PSI of the vehicle on certain terrain, engine power, etc, etc (unless you want o stop players getting closer that 20-50m to it) .

CMx2 and even CMx1 are not your regular RTS style game when it comes to adding content.

Dan

[ October 09, 2005, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[roqf77]

fair enough, as long as ts under 50 quid with one module. Im in!

I take back my previous comment about not buying another cm game.

I do understand you cant cater to all our needs, im not expecting you to be esp super men.

Edit(49.99 is my max, works out at approximatly 70-80 dollars)

[ October 09, 2005, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

[Kwazydog]

Roq, pricng isnt my department and I have no idea of what it will be when it comes to it...I can only say that I hope we can fulfill your needs in that area and I truely hope you find it a fun and interesting game to play once the demo is available

Dan

[Martin Krejcirik]

It's disgusting how many people bitch about WWII not being the first game. Don't you guys see that being it the second game is actually better ?

First game will inherently come with some bugs and bad decisions (remember CMBO/CMBB), also Steve said several major features won't make it into the first game (co-op multi for example).

And I'm sure CM:SF will be great, too.

[Crinius]

Modern Warfare is definitely a nogo for me

[TufenHuden]

I prefer WW-2 myself-demo 1st...then maybe

always say don't fix that isn't broken....

I hope PBEM will be in it-otherwise

nobody has the time for TCP/IP,I'm

a big TCP/IP but don't have the time

for it and not putting in PBEM will

lose allot customers...

[roqf77]

well, as long as its good and not to exspensive ill by it anyway.

[Mattias]

Put me up for a preorder!

Warfare began with Ugh hitting Orgh on the head with a rock. If BFC did a good game on that I would buy it.

What fascinates me is the violent interaction, the whole range of human emotions and activities, from the first battle or the letter written home, to the grand strategy and political manoeuvres. The technical aspects, the tactical, the psychological, the moral, simply put every aspect of war.

What makes it a good game, in my opinion, is playability and faithfulness to the subject. And judging from BTS, eh, BFC's previous efforts I have no doubts.

Bring it on!

M.

[Ant]

Is it true that this game was called 'Shock Force' because BFC knew the effect it would have on the forums?

[Steiner14]

Big disappointment.

1. US-centric view. Maybe i could live with the modern-warfare setting, if it is fun and really works.

But what i can't stand, is the US-propaganda-view. Everytime i switch on the TV, i could go mad, about all the lies, US, the West and the NATO.

Don't want to go into detail. I will definately not buy such a setting.

2. The story: sorry, but Syria is one of the most hatred countries by Israel. The jews will do everything, to throw it down. And that means, USrael will fight and bleed for it...

So to me this setting, that the ZOGs (US, NATO) would fight for one of the last really free and independent countries, is simply ridiculous.

An invasion in Syria to install a ZOG, that could be a realistic setting.

3. For the second game, it is only mentioned, that the campaign could be played from US-side. :eek:

I guess BFC underestimates the attractivity of the german side and overestimates the attractivity of the US-side by far.

BTW: BFC should NOT calculate, a module with British and German troops, in a near-east-setting will sell well. The oposition in Europe against the US is big and in Germany it is HUGE.

i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included).

Only to give BFC a feeling about the potential attractivity of such a setting...

[GSX]

Ya boo hiss. Who would have thought, another company brings out yet another Middle East GAME. And thats all it will be. After all, where the fun in blowing the hell out of Syrians. What Army do they have? What defence can they have against us?

It may be the best game in the world, but real? Come on, the Syrians are worse than the Iraqis.

What will the missions be? Get your Stryker convoy through the town without being attacked by a suicide bomber? Use your superior Night Fighting ability to massacre insurgents who cant even see you.

Im all for something diffrent, but this isnt diffrent, no matter what the gameplay its just not real, I may play the demo, maybe not. All you have done BFC is pander to teen USA, where you obviously think is where your market lies.

Hrrrumph............

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

2. The story: sorry, but Syria is one of the most hatred countries by Israel. The jews will do everything, to throw it down. And that means, USrael will fight and bleed for it...

Always nice to see someone show his true colours, so I'd thought I preserve this.

As for the initial question - I am not disappointed. Not thrilled either, but I really look forward to all the lessons learned from this one making it to WW2 in the next game, and the possibility of multilayer co-op making it to that game as well.

All the best

Andreas