aka_tom_w

here it is MikeyD again with gem of marketing wisdom:

OK Here's another good point. The decision that looks like it will generate the most sales and the most profit for BFC is the one we should be talking about. IMHO MikeyD didn't say it, but something like in the newspaper biz "If it bleeds it leads", which in this case could manifest itself into the game that generates the maximum controversy should get the maximum "free" media exposure and posibly the maxium sales. So why not go for the sensationalism as long as it is not "too close to home" as to be really unpopular? I recall one good post in one thread sometime ago about "branding" by someone here who REALLY understood the concept and was clearly in the marketing business. See my next post for MikeyD's comments. -tom w [ September 16, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Good point there might be two other options besides the first three posted by Steve in the original post: #4 Fictional with new toys. "So we can lobby for adding more equipment in the game". i.e. #5 Its just a game, the backstory doesn't really matter, just release the darn thing ASAP with the least time delay possible. -tom w [ September 15, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If you want to say its Syria this this is a good way to do it: Its just a wargame so that works for me, Cpl Steiner's rationalle there might just be the best way to move forward to make most folks happy. I personally won't be happy or unhappy with any of the three options in the original post, that opened this thread, the choice to go with any singel one of those options would not make me to choose to NOT buy the game. I would suggest that most folks posting to this thread and reading this forum are going to buy the game anyway irrespective of any internal "confusion" or dilema you feel about the issue of the unsettled backstory. And since I am just ranting anyway, some folks might buy this game, (given they are over about 30 and have $50 extra disposable income) just so they can be sure BFC doesn't go into the red and thus miss the opportunity to develop CMx2 WWII. (That would be the loyalty factor I guess ) -tom w [ September 15, 2006, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

How about this: "Just get on with it!!" What I really want is the WWII version of CMx2 and the longer you diddle around some crazy backstory/plot thingy for CM:SF the longer I have to wait for CMx2 WWII! (really) Seriously lots of folks here are thinking that! Backstory? What Backstory that whole concept is new to CM and I since the whole modern thing is not my first choice anyway I don't really care about the backstory? Sure I follow current geopolitical military events, and sure a modern day military simulator "might" be fun, but I would be happy if you would just say "fictional country" in a Syria like setting and evironment and "Get on with it!" Mostly because this makes the most sense to me: "I see your role as the one who enables the playing field, and provides some demo "teams" for us to then reshape. I don't see you in the story-telling role, as that is not your company's forte, nor something I think development time should be spent excessively on, since plenty of armchair historians will fill in the story for free. Something that allows for great flexibility in renaming troop types, names, and TOEs with a range of equipment would give me the best buy for my dollar IMHO. This all points in the "fictional scenario with easily relabeled core elements" direction. " That says it BEST for me. -tom w

OK then you can create an account here if you want to get into it to edit it: web page CMwiki thanks -tom w

yes please... these threads and this forum "should" try to foster a positive learning environment (and yes I am in the education business) for folks who may not be all that aware of the technical jargon or the latest specifications or stats on a vast range of modern equipment BUT who still want to have fun playing the game. So we should try to make learning about the game fun (here in the forum) as well so it might have a chance to be considered fun to play. -tom w [ September 12, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

current news: web page world affairs web forum news

some more info here: web page canadian armourred fanatics online

Out-frikkin-standing! </font>

sorry... But I just thought this juicy tidbit required its VERY own thread: Does that mean an Iron Man Mode for the CM:SF in the first release? or down the road in a later release? Will CM:SF be patched (free) to make the Iron Man Mode available or will it ship in the premier release? Iron Man Mode!!! Are you kidding that would be GREAT! It might not be real fun to play ALL the time but it would be challengeing for a change of pace occasionally. (it would be wonderfull also to handicap a player with a HUGE U.S. force!) I can't believe we will finally get Iron Man Mode where I finally don't have to use my own (very limited) self discpline! woo HOO!! Thanks! That was the BEST bone of all! -tom w [ February 14, 2007, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

there was VERY little there to nibble on I am still starving....

That sounds very interesting. The hunt command and relative spotting look to be one of the most welcome and and highly awaited features that we are all looking forward too! Thanks! -tom w [ September 03, 2006, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

this is a good point. Michael beat me to it.. a minus sign for red is more intuitive IMHO . can the bonus like +2 be two green "+" symbols and maybe the -2 modifier could just be two RED "-" symbols so it would not be colour dependent. Red/Green colour blindness should be considered, good suggestion. -tom w P.s. I could be wrong but it looks like Steve has changed the interface red + symbol to a Red X symbol already. Check the image of the interface, I believe it has changed now. [ September 03, 2006, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

you may have seen this post in that other thread but since the RPG 29 came up here I thought I would repost. This weapons looks like it will level the playing field if the oposition of the US forces have it in great numbers. (and it actually works like it claims) JUST look at what it can penetrate!!! More info on the RPG 29 here: web page russian weapons Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads Type: rocket booster Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire Effective range: up to 500 m Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA

Thats a great looking interface looks like all the controls are handy and it should be pretty easy to get "used to" for the faithful and new players too (they might just have to work a little harder to get used to it) It looks great and one can see a great deal of time and effort has gone into it! Nice job! -tom w [ September 01, 2006, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That sounds like a HECK of A LOT of math calculations. AND we can play realtime as well.. As I post this I wondering (with GREAT anticipation) how well this game will play and how fun it will be? All I can say is "Wow" -tom w

That sounds like a HECK of A LOT of math calculations. AND we can play realtime as well.. As I post this I wondering (with GREAT anticipation) how well this game will play and how fun it will be? All I can say is "Wow" -tom w

That sounds like a HECK of A LOT of math calculations. AND we can play realtime as well.. As I post this I wondering (with GREAT anticipation) how well this game will play and how fun it will be? All I can say is "Wow" -tom w

More interesting info on the XM307 web page here More info on the RPG 29 here: web page russian weapons Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads Type: rocket booster Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire Effective range: up to 500 m Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA [ September 01, 2006, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

KISS (Keep it Simple Soldier!) are they smoke dischargers? or is that just too simple? dunno? [ August 30, 2006, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

this is the latest word from the "horse's mouth" :

" You could just start leveling some buildings and have it count against the US victory points" Oh Yes THAT would be gamey! I have every confidence Steve and Charles will do everything possible to reduce all opportunities for gamey exploitation like that one. -tom w That would allow for some pretty gamey tactics for the Syrians, no? You could just start leveling some buildings and have it count against the US victory points. </font>

Thanks for the replies Steve. That makes sense.