Kwazydog
-
Posts
1,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 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 ]
-
Hehe, I cant argue with you there!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.
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
-
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 thoughOriginally posted by Michael Dorosh:Can you really compare the early 6 wheel designs with the LAV family?
Dan
-
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 didOriginally 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: . ! 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
-
Hehe, well if you are not concerned about which side you play to the point youll pick this one with the pretties arm patches, why the concernOriginally posted by Zalgiris 1410:BTW for an Aussie strangly I prefer going the NZers in CMAK because IMO their black and white shoulder patch looks cooler. So I ask you where's my National pride?
? When I mentioned the 1 in 20 I meant the Aussies actually, hehe, as we rarely get s look in...Im do used to playing the US, Brits and Germans that I dont even think twice about it anymore.
Dan
-
Zalgiris, try coming form a country who's forces are represented in about 1 in 20 wargames...then youd have something to complain about
. Personally Ive never understood peoples concerns about playing another 'sides' country such as he Russians in CMBB as for me the game is about tactics, not national pride, but I guess its something I am used too, hehe.Dan
-
Hehe okay guys locking this one. There are going to be many new thread over the next few hours so lets try and keep new topics to relevant subject
Dan
-
Dillweed, go to amazon and try a search under Iraq or Fallujah for some personal accounts of recent combat. I havnt read either of the below but I think I may order them myself....
Hope they provide you with a start!
Dan
-
Actually youd probably be surpsied what info is available on such topics if you look....in some ways its actually easier to find accurate info on modern gear than on certain WW2 weapons and vehicles. For instance we already have documents on exactly the above topic from real world combat situations (from publically available sources too).Originally posted by moneymaxx:It seems that even the US army doesn't know exactly if and when improvements of the amour protection will be apllied but that is of vital importance to the game (can a RPG destroy it or not and under which circumstances? I think the army won't tell BFC).
Most problems with the Stryker were actually proposed before it went into combat. Its been in combat for about a year now I believe, and crews have been very happy all round with the vehicles capabilities and survivability.
Dan
-
Dillweed, what exactly are you after? There are plenty of interest books and documents on the subject if you know where to look.
Although I havnt recieved my copy yet Ive heard good things about the following documentary which was aired on the history channel a couple of months back...it looks at the situation and tactics used in Fallujah in recent months.
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74135&browseCategoryId=
Dan
-
Only if they havnt been following any of the threads Steve has been posting in on the matter. As he has mentioned, if we didnt think we couldnt have made a challanging and interesting game out of this scenario, we wouldnt have.Originally posted by Overman_XXX:Sigh...did someone say 'turkey shoot'?
Dan
-
Hi Guys,
I posted this to another thread but thought I would stick it here as its on topic...
Although much of Syrias equipment is older they have a hell of a lot of it. They have also been making some significant attempts to upgrade in the last few years. Some examples of this including the purchase of a considerable number of Kornet-E ATGM's (this one is going to cause the US player some nightmares!), the upgade of a reasonable number of T-55's with Kontankt-5 ERA, a new battlistic systems and a 125mm gun (capable of also firing ATGM's) and they are currently upgrading a bunch of their T-72's through an Italian company including new armor, computers, thermal gear and ability to fire the 9K119 Reflecks ATGM. They had also recently purchased a bunch of night vision gear from a British source (oops!).
The T-80 is a little more tricky as there is so much conflicting info as to weather its in service with the Syrians or not. We need to look into it further.
Dan
-
Hellfish, I agreeOriginally posted by fytinghellfish:When you put a platoon of M-1s in support of a US light infantry company against a Syrian T-72 company with a BMP platoon in support in an urban environment, I think you've got an excellent case for a good, entertaining, exciting and unpredictable scenario.
I think people shouldnt consider a conflict against a determined enemy, even one with older equipment, as a push over particually in an urban environment... unfortuantely the current insurgency in Iraq should teach us that.
Much of Syrias equipment is older but they have a lot of it and have been making some significant attempts to upgrade in the last few years. Some examples of this including the purchase of a considerable number of Kornet-E ATGM's, the updgade of a reasonable number of T-55's with Kontankt-5 ERA, a new battlistic systems and a 125mm gun (capable of also firing ATGM's) and they are currently upgrading a bunch of their T-72's through an Italian company including new armor, computers, thermal gear and ability to fire the 9K119 Reflecks ATGM. They had also recently purchased a bunch of night vision gear from a British source (oops!).
The result is that there should be some very interesting challanges for the player, particually in urban environments as you mentioned.
Dan
-
They are in game shots, but of course from an early build. Probably from about the same time frame within development as those CMBO Alpha shots referred to above I guess
Dan
[ October 08, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]
-
Id like to see some names too roqOriginally posted by roqf77:Like i said ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but without naming names other games companies can fit more in games without the need for modules and sell it under 30 quid a title.
And before you say it there nto all massive game's companies either.
. As the guy who makes the 3D models for these games I would be very interested in knowing which games you are referring too here. I know how long each model takes to build and texture at this detail I would love to know about these smaller game companies who are doing similar.
Dan
[ October 08, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Wow, some of you KG guys are so polite, insightful and level headed....such an asset to the forums.
Dan
[ October 08, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Yup, I was just responding to the comment that no copy protection works in any way shape or form when actually it does.Originally posted by Immacolata:Single player games are where copy protection doesn't work well. BF2 and JO are both multiplayer heavy games. So if any kind of meaningful (read: working) copy protection for CMx2 should be implemented, it requires a server backend with a log of unique cd-keys, mandatory online validation etc.
The closest thing Ive seen to a copy protection that works on pc (exluding online games) is Starforce. And even that isn't proof.
StarForce is another method that tends to make copying a game more trouble than its worth, though it can cause problems for legit customers too, at least in its earlier forms.
Dan
-
Actually thats not true. Yes pretty much all protection can be cracked yet the more trouble it is to do so the more liklely that someone will buy a product they are interested in instead of stealing it.Originally posted by GunSheep:Mmmm...I really hate to state the obvious but copy protection in any way/shape/form doesn't work.
Off of the top of my head take Joint Operations and even Battlefield 2 as an example. These games require you to create an account with your own unique CD key and then to log into that account to play online. Without a genuine CD key the server wont let you log in. For games such as these unless you are really cheap and want to go to a lot of trouble its simply much easier simply to buy the prodcut than it is to pirate it.
Dan
[ September 14, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Hi Guys
I think Im pretty safe in saying that we wont be using dongles guys. I used to have to use them with 3D Max and they were nothing but a pain in the butt (they conflicted with other hardware, didnt always register, etc).
On top of that I know that there were cracks floating around for 3D max and many people felt that they were more reliable to use than the dongle itself, hehe. In the end even that product, which sold for thousands of dollars, decided to get rid of them and go with the windows registration method (which has also been crack).
Dan
-
Actually Im having enough trouble just trying to work out the correct lobster colouring under combat conditions
Dan
-
Eichenbaum, no worries, each to their own
. As you say if you feel that the changes being made to CMx2, such as the 1:1 infantry representation, are indeed minor it looks like you may indeed ready for something different. Hopefully we may suprise you though, hehe!
Dan
-
Eichenbaum, I havnt seen Steve mention once that the campaign wont be in as he has been very careful about this, though its possible you may have read posts by other members that gave you that impression. I cant imagine you have read the below threads as you felt CMx2 would be similar to CMx1, so check them out for many details from Steve on the new engine. Off of the top of my head for major differences check out info on the 1:1 infantry representation, relative spotting, terrain deatils and 1m terrain and height resolution, building details, etc...Originally posted by eichenbaum:Then, I guess, I have been tricked by all the fog that's hanging around CMx2. Sometimes there's a campaign system and sometimes not.
Hope they help
Dan
[ September 07, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Thomm, yup, its a misunderstanding
The height grid is set at a 1m resolution across the map, but the actual height at each point on that grid can actually be set down to the millimetre I beleive. Does that make more sense?
Dan
-
Ahhh crap it, hehe.....fixed
Dan
So, who's disappointed?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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 ]