aka_tom_w

Oh YEAH Good thinking! Thats probably a factor, or at the very least something for Charles to think about. -tom w [ November 06, 2005, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK then I think its great that there will be a multiplayer "ironman" option for RealTime with NO pausing allowed. That sounds like a GREAT option. I am wondering if that somehow implies that TCP/IP multiplayer is be considered as a feasible option for multiplayer play? :confused: -tom w

Have you done away with the cover arc?? or is it one of the things that worked well in CMBB an CMAK that will be kept in CMx2?? (or is there something like it but not actually a "cover arc" command?) just curious thanks -tom w [ November 05, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Some of this might be interesting take another look at look at the OLD date, this is from back in Feb 2005 almost 10 months ago he he

I think Steve has sort of defined a "command game" as some form of text only game paradigm where you simulate the role of only one level of command and send text orders one command level down and wait for a text message back from that level of command without ever seeing the battlefield or the other actual units. Within that definition Steve was talking about CM:SF is not technically a "command game" (one level) because the player can play the role of all levels of command. AS you said: This implies a different "kind" of game more like a (and I dont' think this is the name Steve called it) combat simulator rather then a "command level" game. Sorry I did not mean to split hairs somewhere there is a very lengthy post by Steve about what a "command game" is and how they are not interested in developing command level games. (or something) -tom w

I would guess Steve may be asking us for a show of faith that the new Command and Control system, combined with the new extreme fog of war options AND relative spotting will have a somewhat cumulative impact that should reduce just about anything "instantaneous" in the game, BUT I am just guessing. -tom w [ November 05, 2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

WOW! Great Many thanks the rest of my family JUST can't understand why I can't let my powwerbook out of my sight now for more a minute for fear of missing more news worthy posts and staying up-to-date with all the latest news! My head is spinning (in a good way) -tom w

This MUST surely qualify as the VERY first CM:SF mod! -tom w

Agreed. That would be exactly what some players have always wanted, but it turns the game into a fantasy trip that has nothing to do with tactical command realities. Michael </font>

I think this should cover it from the new Magazine article in the new Magazine thread.

That was a very informative article Ray posted. Just so my first post is not misinterpretted, I have NO problem what so ever with women in combat roles as longer as they REALLY want to be there and volunteer for that duty or service. No problem there . My previous rant was a self servering plea NOT to over complicate the CM:SF game, and possibly DELAY its release by requesting YET another model and another set of animations for female units. Just keep the game simple and leave the women out of the game so that we can play the game sooner and let them release it without any additional delay! (please) -tom w

:confused: GOOD question I have been giving that some thought myself. "How does it work?" -tom w

I have done my VERY best not to contribute to this thread.... However I feel I must now say something that may seem somewhat out of character for me..... [rant on] ITS JUST A GAME! How many other games of this nature, have women in them? None? Does BFC really need to be ground breaking on this front as well? I think NOT. How about keeping it simple. The market for this game is mostly male dominated. (Does that mean is should have "chicks" in it?? I don't think so.) How about this motto... "CM:SF Made by men for MEN and its about modern male combat soldiers in modern combat, chicks need not apply." [/rant off]

bump

there was a HUGE thread on this some time ago Let me try to search the link the bottom line is they don't know yet or have not said anything about the details of this issue, except for a few comments about what WON'T happen in the game. For instance players cannot try to kill save or Move their WIA men that can no longer move on there own. there is a BIG thread on this one you should read The original link was located and bumped it contains this suggestion in it which is being considered by Steve and Charles as an abstraction that is possibly workable: I think some form of abstracted suggestion like this will work FINE in the game.... (I hope) -tom w [ November 04, 2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Thanks Ron this one deserves its OWN thread. This is a quote from the current Computer Games magazine article.... So what do you think? -tom w [ November 04, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

they say its out now for subscribers see the other magazine thread [ November 04, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

no no .. the game code should work on both intel and IBM G5 processors if I understand this whole issue correctly :confused: -tom w

Apple web link on game development... more news for BFC to ponder... web page this is interesting: How animated building blocks work to make PC to Mac Game code transition really simple... web page to see animated blocks move around to suggest game code is EASY to migrate your thoughts? -tom w [ November 03, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes I agree with MikeyD 1:1 representation WILL BE A BIG DEAL in CM:SF -tom w

Oh yes I have just set up and old Mac G4 for CMAK and I am enjoying that. CMAK in the ETO is still FUN! And yes I must have you and those battles confused with someone else. I think I remember the 105 MM howitzer battle because that damn gun hurt me good. The thing about PBEM is that the MAC needs to run in OS 9 (somewhat akin to Windows 95) and I would have to reboot into OS X (Operating System 10) to pick up e-mail, then reboot the computer into OS 9 to play for every e-mail on every turn. If the timing worked out TCP/IP would be better, but I can't host because I have a dynamic IP on the back side of an Apple Airport router So mostly I still play against the AI which just like getting a quick and simple Combat Mission fix. (sort of like Chinese food, leaves you hungry later, but tastes good initially). -tom w

Hello Abbott Long time As I recall you and I did (simulated) battle one time, A LONG time ago in CMBO. The first time I think I was the American's and you may have under estimated me and I pulled off a very decisive ambush or sneak attack on your flank.. (or something) and I think I won that one and you were surprised and grumbled our something . Then another time we met in a tourement (or somthing) and I was on defence and you TOTALLY creamed me. ( I think I was defending with an American units) and your blitzkrieg attack completedly overwhelmed my defensive position. or Something like that? I quess we will have to give it another go when CM:SF comes out, its just hard for me to imagine a balanced scenario in that game and I am NOT one of those guys on this board who keeps saying "Oh hell, give me the Syrian's and I will show you all the glory of vicotory over those Yanky imperialist invaders". It might be a while before I can play the game on my Mac though so you might have to wait for the Mac release for me. -tom w

Perhaps due to irreconcilable political differences? -tom w

this thing?

"What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will." Yes " Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel?" Probably yes but they are all just politically correct yellow belly diplomats with no clue anyways and they are wrong. " If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces?" Not likely I suspect Syria will take advantage of the situation, try to "act" proper, (enjoying a free ride) and keep their collective heads down and come out ahead in the long run without any real fear of actual military intervention by anyone, except maybe the Israeli's (perhaps?). If not Israel who else could do it? (military invasion I mean?) -tom w