aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
OKOriginally posted by MikeyD:Everybody's discussing what THEY want.
Which decision do you think would be best for BFC's overall sales? I'd hate to say it (because its certainly not my own personal choice) but maybe its the in-your-face all out "Syria slug-fest" game. Even to the point of having a highway sign reading "to Damascus" with Strykers rolling the direction of a distant burning city. Something so audacious that it would raise the hairs on the back of your neck to see it sitting on store shelves! And if the public is horrified? Well, as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity. :eek:
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:Is this the point where I vote to include multi-turret Russian tanks in the game? I'm worried that some votes up above for 'fictional' were made simply so they can lobby for adding more equipment in the game!#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.stuff like T-80, T-90, BMP-3 Kornet, or even Chinese equipment using the CMx2 game engine.-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 would gloss over the implausibility issues in three ways. Firstly, I would not specifically say it was in 2007. Just go with the old cliche of, "The near future". If scenarios need specific dates, just use the convention of "H-Hour" and "D-Day" plus "X". Secondly, don't mention Afghanistan or Iraq at all. Players will have to assume that US involvement in these countries has been scaled back somehow but they don't need to know exactly how. Thirdly, don't go into any detail about why Syria is invaded. Just say it is the "third major conflict in the so-called 'War on Terror'".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:Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:Personally, I would like whatever option allows scenario developers (and I'm not one) the greatest flexibility to generate content with maximum equipment choices. As the game industry has shown, there is an ocean of free fan content that just needs to be tapped with the right toolset. I am getting newfound enjoyment out of CMBB and CMAK years after purchase due to the folks down at the Proving Grounds -- they make em, I have fun testing them.
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.
AND
Dalem says:
Steve, I am not that jazzed by a modern setting so I don't really consider myself to have much of a dog in this cake mix, but...
I think the most important driving factor is that no matter what you do or where you set it, a very vocal group (minority? majority?) will be screaming for their T-80s and the like. You know it. I know it. They know it.
So try a Taliban-ruled Syria that has deposed Assad the Chinless and has as its elite force a regiment of Russians and all their top equipment who have gone 100% mercenary. You can have a storyline involving irregulars, regulars, fedayyin-like nutbags riding explosive-laden motorcycles at armor columns, and platoons of T-80s.
Seems reasonable to me.
"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:
thanks
-tom w
-
yes please...A "CM:SF for Dummies" is a great idea. As is a series of veery simple tutorial mission (clue: don't try to teach everything in a single mission).However, the single most important effort is this: Be nice. When a newbie posts some naive gibberish, tell him he/she is wrong, but be nice about it, and be constructive.
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
Canada sends tanks to AfghanistanOfficials had said Leopards were readied for exercises; move marks first time vehicles will be sent into combat
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, September 09, 2006
CREDIT: The Canadian Press
Canada's fleet of Leopard tanks, like this one shown at CFB Edmonton, underwent a $145-million upgrade in the late 1990s to equip the vehicles with new computers and heat-sensing gear to help improve their fighting capability.
Less than three weeks after it denied it was sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, the Canadian military is set to ship as many as 20 of the heavy-tracked armoured vehicles to Kandahar to provide additional protection for its troops.
Although the tanks have been used once overseas on a peace support mission in Kosovo in the 1990s, this is the first time they will be sent into an actual combat situation.
A warning order was issued earlier this week to the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton to prepare for the deployment. Twenty tanks are being readied for the operation and about 300 personnel will be heading to Afghanistan.
The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said.
In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.
The decision to ratchet up Canada's force comes as military officers acknowledge they underestimated the resilience of the Taliban. NATO has been asking for more equipment and soldiers from its allies to deal with the increasing threat in southern Afghanistan.
But government sources said the decision behind sending the tanks to Afghanistan is to provide more protection for Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Teams, rather than use the armoured vehicles directly in combat against the Taliban.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has said he plans to put more emphasis on the teams that provide medical and humanitarian help to Afghan civilians. Part of that is increasing the protection for those teams that use light-armoured vehicles and armoured trucks called G-Wagons.
"The protection levels aren't adequate over there," said one source.
Besides convoy escort, the tanks would be used to rush to the aid of light-armoured vehicles that have been ambushed by the Taliban.
Canada has more than 2,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.
It will take at least a month to get the Leopards over to Afghanistan, but that deployment could be sped up if the U.S. military ships the vehicles using its large transport aircraft. Otherwise, the tanks will be sent by ship.
In the late 1990s, the Canadian military spent $145 million to upgrade its 114 Leopards with new computers and heat-sensing equipment to improve their fighting capability.
On Aug. 24, the Citizen reported that military maintenance crews were working overtime to prepare the service's Leopard tanks for deployment and several soldiers told the newspaper the vehicles were headed to Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces, however, said the tanks were destined for an exercise in Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alta.
Besides having heavier armour than the existing Canadian vehicles in Afghanistan, the Leopards are equipped to mount devices and plows capable of clearing mines.
The Leopards, capable of a maximum speed of 65 km/h, will not have trouble keeping up with the convoys. The Canadian tanks have a crew of four and were built in Germany. They are armed with a 105-millimetre gun.
The tank has made a comeback in the army, which had been in the process of switching over to an entirely wheeled fleet of armoured vehicles. Army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has made it clear he wants troops to retain their skills in working with tanks.
The Leopards were in the process of being mothballed or sold off, but with the Afghan war heating up, army commanders put a halt to that process in May.
Canadian and NATO troops, along with the Afghan army, are currently in battle with an estimated 700 Taliban near Kandahar City. According to NATO officials, the force taking part in Operation Medusa is closing the circle around the besieged insurgents. There have, however, been reports that fresh reinforcements of Taliban are moving into the area to fight the Canadians.
Five Canadian soldiers were killed over the Labour Day long weekend during Operation Medusa. One died when U.S. warplanes mistakenly opened fire on a group of Canadian troops. Four others were killed in battles with the Taliban.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
-
Saturday » July 8 » 2006
The return of the Leopard
Three years ago, Canada announced the demise of its fleet of tanks, saying that lighter, faster and more manoeuverable Stryker mobile gun systems were required if we were to be a viable, battlefield-ready force. But now, our experiences in Afghanistan suggest otherwise, and the army is asking the government to reconsider.
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, July 08, 2006
CREDIT: Cplc. Serge Gouin, Citizen Special
Once considered a 'millstone' by Canada's military, the Leopard tank, shown on a training exercise at CFB Wainwright, Alta., may be making a comeback.
On Oct. 29, 2003, Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum and Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier assembled the Ottawa news media to announce the demise of the country's tank force. Canada was taking its fleet of Leopard tanks out of service and was going high-tech.
Mr. McCallum said the army had requested the government purchase the U.S. Stryker Mobile Gun System, better known as the MGS. That wheeled vehicle, also being bought by the American army, had less armour than a tank but could move faster and was more manoeuverable on the battlefield.
According to Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the army's Leopards had served their purpose and, despite recently undergoing a $145-million upgrade, were now of limited use. The vehicle of the future was instead the MGS, which the general, an armoured officer, dubbed state-of-the art and a "war-winner."
"A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada's army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations," Lt.-Gen. Hillier said. "We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years," he added, referring to the Leopard.
The general dismissed concerns from some opposition politicians who warned the decision would put the lives of Canadian military personnel at risk and placed the country on par with Luxembourg and Iceland, two nations which also saw no need for heavier armoured vehicles.
The army's plan would instead see the MGS working in conjunction with another high-tech weapon, the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle or MMEV. Based on the army's existing air defence missile system called ADATS, the MMEV would be designed and built by the Quebec-based aerospace firm Oerlikon and be capable of shooting down aircraft or destroying ground targets.
But less than three years later, and in a major reversal of its plans, the army is now asking the Conservative government to cancel both the MGS and MMEV programs.
The MGS is no longer the right vehicle for the army and the Leopard is no longer seen as a millstone. A study is under way to determine how to keep the tank in service until at least 2015.
Army officials refuse to say why they want to cut the two programs which just a few years ago were heralded as evidence that Canada would be fielding a high-tech military.
The decision to buy the MGS and MMEV was at the heart of the army's decision to transform itself into a force that could be quickly sent overseas and, once there, rapidly move around the battlefield. Tanks took too long to get to a war zone, Canada's military leadership maintained, and the tracked behemoths were difficult to manoeuvre, particularly in places like Kabul. In fact, Canada wasn't sending its Leopards overseas all that much; the last time they had been used on an international mission was in Kosovo in 1999.
The army's plan, instead, called for using the MGS, the MMEV and another anti-tank missile system to form a "direct fire system" that would replace the Leopard.
The MMEV, according to the Canadian Forces, would be capable of shooting down aircraft as well as drones, knocking out armoured vehicles and destroying enemy forces hidden in hills and buildings.
Unlike the Leopard, the MGS would quickly drive into battle. Any needed additional firepower would come from other sources. "We now have a very different kind of battle space," Lt.-Col. Paul Fleury, then director of land strategic planning, told the Canadian Forces newspaper the Maple Leaf in 2004. "And in any major conflict now we'll have contact with aircraft up to and including B-52s that can drop ordnance wherever we need it."
But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to new questions about how future conflicts will be fought. Insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and using roadside bombs have proven to be a formidable enemy, knocking out lightly armoured vehicles and even tanks. Fielding vehicles with better protection, argue some commanders, is now the way of the future.
At the same time, other equipment is more urgently needed by the Canadian army for its future operations, particularly those in Afghanistan. The $3 billion to be spent on the MGS and MMEV, a price tag which included long-term maintenance contracts for the vehicles, could be put to better use elsewhere.
The MGS, in particular, has faced widespread criticism, particularly from soldiers in the U.S. Some American officers have argued that the move towards such lighter forces is dangerous. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.
The other main argument against the MGS centres on the vehicle's light armour and its vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades. "The Stryker was not ordered with the RPG in mind," noted a report written by U.S.-based analyst Victor O'Reilly, who described the vehicle as suited for light peacekeeping duties, but not combat.
Other critics in the U.S. pointed to tests by the U.S. military which revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the MGS. The blast from the gun was so powerful it damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon's loading system, and soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped. Others noted that the MGS had just 18 rounds of ammunition compared to the 50 or 55 usually carried in many tanks.
Officials with General Dynamics, the U.S. defence firm building the Stryker family of vehicles, countered that such criticisms were no longer valid since improvements had taken care of any problems. The vehicle, they noted, was more than capable of surviving on the battlefield.
A similar but more limited debate in Canada's military took place largely behind closed doors. Those in the armoured corps were not happy with the MGS purchase, but they stayed loyal to the service and said nothing publicly. Studies done by the Canadian Forces in the late 1990s had already called into question replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to the MGS. The outcome of one of those war game simulations warned that using such a vehicle would not only cost Canadian lives but would be "morally and ethically wrong."
Despite such concerns, there was a widespread acknowledgement in the Canadian army that the MGS purchase was a done deal.
A few officers, however, stepped forward to question the purchases in internal memos and professional publications. On Sept. 15, 2003, Major T.W. Melnyk wrote a report noting that while the MGS and MMEV improved the army's capability, that didn't mean they were needed for the future transformation of the force.
"Given the public commitment to MGS by senior leadership, any difference of opinion at the staff level is largely academic," the major wrote. "While the MGS is not considered to be required for transformation, the project must also be taken as a given."
The MMEV was another matter, though. "It is not clear that providing a wheeled 8 kilometre direct fire capability to the Army will contribute in a major way to transformation," his report pointed out. "The logic and value of spending $300-$400 million on an orphan fleet of 34 vehicles for which there is a minimal industrial support base must also be questioned."
That purchase should be re-evaluated, the report concluded. Maj. Melnyk added that the army disagreed with his assessment of the MGS and MMEV.
The report was controversial enough that the Defence department's Access to Information branch withheld its release to the Citizen for 16 months. When it was made public last year, the Defence department dismissed the document as an informal analysis by a planning officer that did not reflect the military's official view.
In late 2003, an even more pointed criticism of the MGS purchase emerged in the army's professional journal. In an article in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield warned that the MGS purchase wouldn't provide the Canadian Forces with any new capabilities, and instead could saddle it with a soon-to-be outdated vehicle.
He noted that the Stryker represented only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it started fielding a more futuristic family of armoured vehicles around 2015. Once that happened, the American military, with its large budget, could either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.
But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces wouldn't have that option, according to Lt.-Col. Summerfield. It would have to operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles, it would not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans planned to field, he warned.
"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems, including the Leopard tank," the lieutenant colonel wrote. But the army countered that the MGS did represent an improvement in technology. It intended to install more modern equipment on board the MGS, improving its ability to transmit and receive information well beyond what was capable with the Leopards.
In addition, the low profile turret of the MGS allowed the vehicle's crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the chassis. "That is new technology and it's a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Col. Mike Kampman, the army's director of strategic planning, said in an interview at the time.
But it was a comment by a retired general that set off the most extensive and dogged defence of the MGS yet offered by the army leadership. Responding to a Canadian Forces report that showed tanks played a key role in the Iraq war, retired brigadier general Jim Hanson ridiculed the MGS purchase.
"The Americans drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad where RPGs bounced off their armour," said Brig.-Gen. Hanson. "Buying the Stryker -- that's insanity."
He also argued that Canada's Leopards could be upgraded at a lower cost than the MGS price tag and still provide the army with armour protection and firepower for years to come. He also questioned Gen. Hillier's claims that the army can't get its Leopards to war zones, noting that if the military had really wanted to use tanks on missions, it would not be a problem. The MGS would initially have to be transported to a war zone by ship, the same way that Leopards would be moved, added Brig.-Gen. Hanson.
Then-army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier responded with a 1,000-word rebuttal in the Citizen. He called such comments "a distortion" and characterized critics of the MGS as "armchair strategists" who "preferred it the old way."
Warfare had changed. No longer was the Canadian Forces facing the Russians, Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. Instead, it was up against "snakes," a reference to terrorists and insurgents.
"Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "The MGS, in conjunction with other combat systems, will give us a much greater capability on operations such as those being conducted in Kabul, and still give us options for high-intensity combat."
In addition, MGS armour would be improved to defend against rocket-propelled grenades.
Canada's Leopard tanks, noted Lt.-Gen. Hillier, could not be compared to main battle tanks in other western armies since they lacked the protection and firepower of those vehicles.
The general also directly linked the purchase of the MGS to the future transformation of Canada's army. "This transformational process to counter the Snakes that are prevalent around the world is unsettling to some," he wrote.
"They would appear to prefer that we stop the process of change irrespective of the dramatically different threat."
That, argued the general, would be illogical.
It will now be up to Gen. Hillier as the country's top soldier to recommend whether Defence Minister Gordon
O'Connor accepts the army's wish to shutdown the MGS and MMEV programs.
The decision to cut at least the MGS could be quickly embraced by Mr.
O'Connor, a former armoured corps officer. In the past, the Conservatives have been critical of the MGS purchase, and in June 2004, the party's defence policy called for the purchase of a more survivable main battle tank such as the U.S. M1A2 or the German Leopard 2.
As well, Mr. O'Connor's equipment adviser, retired Colonel Howie Marsh, has questioned the MGS purchase. Aaron Gairdner, Mr. O'Connor's chief of staff, is well versed with the ongoing concerns about the MGS and in his previous job as the Conservatives' defence researcher was instrumental in obtaining much of the information the party used to criticize the purchase.
Defence analyst David Rudd says he doesn't believe the decision to cancel the MGS and continue to keep the Leopards in service means Canada will go out and purchase a fleet of new tanks. "I think the army is looking at keeping a capability they can experiment with and maintain skills on," said Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "It means a reprieve for the tank, but that is not the same as a new life."
What will happen with the MMEV is another matter. The military's original plans called for using the weapon system to provide protection at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In that job it would be used in its air defence role to shoot down any aircraft operated by terrorists.
Cancelling a contract potentially worth $1.5 billion for a Quebec-based firm might also not sit well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which is hoping to win a substantial number of seats in that province in the next election.
Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell noted that the existing ADATS system, which forms the basis of the MMEV, has never been upgraded. "You've got certain things you have to have," he added. "I would find it unlikely for us to go without some sort of ground-based air defence."
A decision on the two multibillion dollar programs is expected to be made by the fall.
Whatever the outcome, at stake could be the lives of Canadian troops on future battlefields.
- - -
A Brief History of the Leopard
The Defence department has blown up or sold off almost half of the army's fleet of 114 Leopard tanks. But further disposal of the tanks has been put on hold after the army requested the cancellation of the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.
Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell said the service is keeping 66 of its Leopards in service. Twenty-one are now being used on military firing ranges as targets and 23 were sold to companies in North America. An American firm bought some of the stripped-down tanks for use in forest fire-fighting.
Four other Leopards have been given to museums or earmarked for use as monuments.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
-
some more info here:Originally posted by chris talpas:Speaking of Leo's, there are reports (Globe & Mail) that Canada is preparing to send at least 10 Leo C2's over to Afghanistan to support operations there.
Chris
web page canadian armourred fanatics online
The original Leo buy was 114 gun tanks and 26 variants (Taurus, Badger, Beaver). There are 44 gun tanks and the 26 variants in service at Wainwright, which were to be phased out with delivery of the mobile gun system (MGS). The anticipated cancellation of MGS has prompted the re-commissioning of 22 more gun tanks, bringing the fleet to 66—the exact quantity of the MGS purchase. The remaining 48 gun tanks are surplus and have been donated as monuments or to museums. The remainder will likely be used as hard targets. Leo is now expected to remain in service until 2015. -
Out-frikkin-standing! </font>Originally posted by fytinghellfish:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
We are planning an Iron Man mode where you can only be locked onto your own units, but this is not implemented yet.
-
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?I have no restrictions on where to place the camera. But like CMx1, placing the camera over suspected enemy positions doesn't do anything for me unless I am able to spot the enemy with my own units. And that is the problem my MG Teams were having. We are planning an Iron Man mode where you can only be locked onto your own units, but this is not implemented yet.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.Hunt is the same as CM's Move to Contact. The unit moves until it comes into enemy contact. Thanks to Relative Spotting this should be even more useful in CMx2.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.Originally posted by Andrew H.:This is very cool.
Only thought I have is that people who are red/green colorblind might have some difficulty with the experience level icons. I assume that could be modded, though.
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:
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Everybody is right, for once. It was in CMx1, but not to the degree it could have been thanks to the hardware limitations of the day. The CMx2 engine simulates individual shots, individual cover, individual tragectories, and far more detailed use of cover.
Steve
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Everybody is right, for once. It was in CMx1, but not to the degree it could have been thanks to the hardware limitations of the day. The CMx2 engine simulates individual shots, individual cover, individual tragectories, and far more detailed use of cover.
Steve
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Everybody is right, for once. It was in CMx1, but not to the degree it could have been thanks to the hardware limitations of the day. The CMx2 engine simulates individual shots, individual cover, individual tragectories, and far more detailed use of cover.
Steve
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
More info on the RPG 29 here:
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" :
Battlefront.comAdministrator
Member # 42
posted August 29, 2006 01:27 AM
Cpl Steiner,
We're still shooting for 2006, but if we slip into 2007 it won't be by much. We need to get the game out before anything else crazy happens on Syria's doorstep. We've already had the assassination of Hariri, the subsequent withdrawal of Syrian troops, the findings that Syria was behind the killing, various border clashes with US forces, the Hezbollah/IDF fight, and Syria's recent chest thumping. And imagine that just 3 years ago we were told that Syria wasn't a likely scenario for a conflict
Steve
-
" 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>Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:
Indeed, any sort of firefight in an area that the scenario designer has deemed to be busy with civilian traffic (presumably pedestrian as well as vehicular) has the potential to cause a lot of civilian casualties. All such casualties should count against the US side's victory level, no matter what the cause. Such is the nature of conflict in an age of mass media.
-
Thanks for the replies Steve.
That makes sense.
Q:
Neither player having any real in game control over what gets spotted and what does not?
A:
Quite the contrary. The Syrian player's behavior will most likely decide if an unconventional unit gets spotted or not. Moving a VIED down a street, full speed, at a US convoy is going to be a sure spotting. Leaving it parked on the side of a downtown street probably not. Leaving it parked in the middle of a field, probably. Etc.
i.e. 
Finalizing CM:SF's Setting
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
here it is
MikeyD again with gem of marketing wisdom: