aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
I would really like to see the dud rate modelled.
They have said in the past there is no good relevant information or data on the failure rate of dud rate of weapons and equipment for their old CMx1 WWII games. (Where they did not model the dud rate of ordinance.)
Maybe there is more technical info this time around.
Weapon and equipment failure and the dud rate for explosive ordinance really should be modelled.
If the actual failure rate is known then my guess is to model that rate or % into the game engine should not be all that hard.(maybe)
-tom w
-
I would suggest it is NOT a high priority for the first release.
sooner or later they have to nip "feature creep" in the bud or the development of this game (CM:SF) could easily go on for another 18-24 months. (right now they are suggesting spring 2006 as the release time frame)
My guess is full movie re-play as you requested will not be featured in the first release of the new game engine.
BUT this is JUST my uninformed opinion.
-tom w
-
Thanks again
playing CMAK is like hooking up with an OLD friend!
I have not played for quite some time! (almost a year) BUT this is still ONE great game.
ALL the great scenario's and CM ETO mods and battles are REALLY what make this game GREAT for me. Its like CMBO but WAY better and tweaked perfectly. I am once again enjoying CMAK (sadly not on my OSX only G4 Mac powerbook
) but on a nice G4 iMac that does the trick for me JUST fine. I have been having fun with it all weekend, with all these new scenarios and CMETO mods its like getting a whole NEW computer game for FREE
! Many thanks to all who have posted here and the guy that did all the CMETO mods and that scenario pack too! Thanks
-tom w
-
OK
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions
See you at the proving-grounds.com
-tom w
-
Hi
I am a Mac guy so I have had to ressurrect an old G4 with OS 9 to get my copy of CMAK back in action....
I have not played for quiet a while and I am not familiar with any of the newer or old CMETO scenarios
I prefer to play the Americans and I an interested in hearing about any good (or GREAT ) scenario's for CMAK (Italy or ETO) where there is a GREAT tank battle where Shermans an/ or Hellcats go up against Tigers or Panthers.
I have not played very many so please don't think "oh I won't suggest that because he has probably playyed it awhile ago" . NOT
I don't really play all that much so I am looking for some REALLY good fun tank battle scenarios that I can play or find or download.
I am specifically looking for GOOD scenarios I can play against the AI (solo) where I play the US and the German AI computer player (because it is a well written scenario) will give me a GOOD battle....
Any suggestions?
Thanks
-tom w
-
Are the M551 Sheridan's still in service in Iraq now?
Any chance we can have Sheridan All aluminium tank in CM:SF???
-tom w
-
"this could be the last time, could be the last time I don't know..."
(music jinggle, Stones or the Dead pick one)
-tom w
-
Spring, in the northern hemisphere lasts right up until about June 21st (longest day of the year) however.
-
Steve's answer to an interview question
From this interview at this web pageGamecloud Asks:What sorts of units will be available to control in Combat Mission: Shock Force?
Steve Grammont:
The player is assigned a Stryker Brigade Combat Team centric task force. The SBCT is a very new and innovative component of the US Army's "Transformation" to a post-Cold War military. It is a "medium" force that packs quite a punch but still needs backup forces for certain missions. For such scenarios the player will find himself in command of "heavy" forces such as Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Air and artillery are also available for use, depending on the scenario. Having said that, the general emphasis of the game is on small unit tactics centering around dismounted infantry. CMx1 did a great job of simulating infantry, but CMx2 does an excellent job
-tom w
-
better now
sorry thinking talking and typing at the same time Doh!
-tom w
-
Thanks Steve...Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Oh, and the flightpath of the Javelin is probably accurate enough to make Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's engineers wonder if there is a leak of classified data
Steve
The use of the word "IS" (as in NOT saying "is going to be" or" we are trynig", or "we plan to" blah blah) is in and of itself VERY good NEWS.
Woo HOO!
"flightpath of the Javelin is probably accurate enough Raytheon/Lockheed Martin's engineers wonder if there is a leak of classified data"
That sounds great!
-tom w
-
the Call of Duty 2 demo is out and there is a trailer here that looks pretty impressive for a computer game if you ask me....
Check it out
[ October 27, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
....and the game is going to have the Stryker and the M1A1 Abrams in it! (or else)We're already too far into this to do anything but an arid 2007ish setting.Steve
No matter what happens in Real Life in Syria it would seem this game is going to have a US Stryker Brigade in it no matter what.
(thats ok with me)
-tom w
-
Isn't that the trade mark of the Javelin?
Straight level flight then at the last minute it figures out how to climb, then curve over top of the target and come straight down on it? NOW that would be COOL to see in the game!.
web pageTOW 2B ANTI-TANK MISSILETOW 2B, operates in a "flyover shoot down" top attack mode, unlike other versions which are direct attack. It features a dual-mode target sensor designed by Thales (formerly Thomson-Thorn) Missile Electronics, which includes laser profilometer and magnetic sensor, and new warhead section, produced by Aerojet. It resembles the TOW 2A but without the extendible probe, and is armed with two explosively formed tantalum penetrator (EFP) warheads. The EFP warheads detonate simultaneously, one pointing downwards, the other slightly offset to give an increased hit probability. The warhead material is designed to generate pyrophoric effects within the damaged target.
-
Where is it?
When is it?
Who will get it first?
see the post below
with thanks
-tom w
[ October 26, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
AND M1A1 for the most obvious gamey combined force mix
he heYes, I am also hoping the Bradley IFV will be represented in its various flavours and versions, as well as the M1A2 Abrams which ought to be modeled almost for sure.
-tom w
I am hopeing this means that we will have both Strykers and M-113's in CM:SF so that we as players can make our own (humble) conclusions by employing either vehicle type and seeing how it plays out in the game for various situations. </font>Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, I am neither pro-Stryker nor anti-tank (or tracked APC, or whatever). I simply am interested in simulating a new force structure, with its pros and cons, in a realistic offensive operations setting.
-
oh gets getting more interesting now
US, France threaten sanctions on Syria over Hariri
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:22 p.m. ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and France circulated a Security Council draft resolution on Tuesday threatening economic sanctions if Syria fails to cooperate with a U.N. probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The draft says Syria must detain for questioning any official a U.N. investigation wants to interview in or outside the country. It invokes Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which makes council decisions mandatory for all U.N. members.
The sanctions threat invokes Article 41 of the U.N. Charter, which can include "complete or partial interruption of economic relations" and "severance of diplomatic relations."
German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, who heads the investigation and released a report last Thursday, said the assassination of Hariri in Beirut on February 14 "was organized by Syrian and Lebanese security officials."
Hariri opposed Syrian domination in Lebanon.
Mehlis repeatedly said Syria had not cooperated, he was unable to talk to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and several officials interviewed gave false statements.
It was uncertain whether the resolution would suit Security Council members usually wary of sanctions, like Russia, China and Algeria, although U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said all had been consulted. He said he did not expect sanctions to be considered until Mehlis again reports to the council, probably around December 15.
The resolution would also impose a travel ban and a freeze on overseas assets on those designated now or in the future by Mehlis' commission.
Bolton said this would include 10 people Lebanon has already charged with complicity. But the officials cited in Mehlis' report would not yet be subject to sanctions.
Written by the United States and France and backed by Britain, the text puts more pressure on Syria, already a Bush administration target for its alleged failure to keep foreign fighters from crossing its border with Iraq.
NOT RULING OUT MILITARY OPTIONS
Both U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have refused to rule out possible military action against Syria, but said Washington had not exhausted its diplomatic options.
Bush told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Tuesday, "It (military action) is the last -- very last option." He said he had "worked hard for diplomacy and will continue to work the diplomatic angle on this issue."
No vote on the resolution is set, but the United States hopes for approval at a Security Council foreign ministers' meeting, tentatively set for Monday.
"It is important to show that the Security Council can follow through on its resolutions," Bolton said. "If the (Mehlis) commission is obstructed by the government or by individuals, the council has to come to the assistance of the commission ... and back it up."
The United States and France circulated the resolution hours after Mehlis briefed the Security Council on his report and held a news conference.
Mehlis also said his 30-member team from 17 countries had received a number of "credible" threats, which he expected would increase before his probe ended on December 15.
-
from this web page:To date, the only information Apple has provided about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is that it will come sometime between late 2006 and 2007 and that it will be Intel compatible. Meanwhile, anonymous sources revealed to MacosXrumors the first major feature of Leopard and it looks like it has to do with the Finder.According to the sources, Apple will entirely re-design the Finder in its next major Mac OS X update. The new version of the Finder, code-named “Chardonnay” (like the wine), will be totally based on the Spotlight meta-search technology which was introduced earlier this year with Tiger.
The extensive use of Spotlight in the next version of Finder will bring the following enhancements to it:
- significant overall performance increase
- improved user interface
- even more integrated Spotlight related features (search, smart folders, document previews…).
The aim behind this new Finder is to offer to the user the ability to browse his files just as he browses his music. Users will be able to browse files by different criterias (name, type/creator, creation date, modification date…).
Sources also told us that Apple may also add the ability to edit meta-tags directly from the Finder, just as we edit ID3Tags on iTunes. Though this feature doesn’t appear to be implemented in early builds, the new Finder’s architecture is making it quite easy to add such a feature, explain sources.
On the developers side, Apple should also improve Spotlight’s API a lot, making it easier to use for developers and more powerful. It might be possible for developers of Cocoa applications to add meta-tags support to a document type with few coding.
This first drop of information already shows that Leopard will be far more than a cosmetic update. We guess Apple has many other major features in development for this release. We’ll be trying to get more details on this major feature as well as on other Leopard features so don’t hesitate to contact us if you know more about Leopard.
I don't really know what that might mean for CM:SF.
:confused:
-tom w
-
I guess our problem is we are a miniority.
But we shall be a VOCAL minority! :cool:
Lets hope for the best, at least they are being practical about it, and we know the BFC team are not overtly "anti-Mac".
-tom w
-
There was something about Late Oct. or early Nov. when the Computer Gaming Monthly mag (?) hits the stands we would see something from them JUST before that ..... or something?
any other news?
-tom w
-
just in case you are interested
-tom w
linkA State of Disobedience is based round that idea that has haunted military and alternate history writers since 1960 – A second US civil war. The main problem with such a scenario, of course, is that the USA of 2004 is very different from the US of 1860. A massive, four-year long war with state against state is impossible, although some writers have considered massive guerilla war and foreign support. Many other people have preached and planned for a long war against the government, perceiving it as hostile to the American people and slowly becoming less and less democratic.A State of Disobedience is set, contrary to the book cover, in 2012, which is the fairly near future. In the usual US electoral mess – made worse by trends that make it very dangerous to lose an election – the US elects a president called Wilhelmina Rottemeyer. Rottemeyer’s principles are simple, more power for her, and she’ll do anything to keep that power, including developing a private army of federal employees, political officers for the military and a private system of control for the state governments, many of whom are unable or unwilling to rock the boat. Rottemeyer’s policies – I sense a right-wing cautionary theme here – bring serious disruption to the lives of many Americans, including Alvin G. Scheer, whose trial we read snippets of throughout the book, although we don’t learn why until the last chapter. The outcome of rasing taxes on businesses, it seems, is increased prices and the law that gives medical care to all means that doctors cannot treat the really desperate patients because of the screaming children.
Events come to a head in Texas, which is lucky enough to have a governer with the courage to stand up to Rottemeyer, although I suspect that Rottemeyer would have had someone like her killed quietly. The federal law enforcement agencies accidentally or deliberately kill hundreds of people in a raid on a church – and accidentally kill the governor’s brother. The shocked state of Texas separates itself from the rest of the US and acts as an independent state. This, of course, cannot go unchallenged by Rottemeyer and she acts to seal off Texas and invade. What follows is a bizarre war that ends with the collapse of the federal government.
It might just be me being old fashioned, but the purpose of a book’s first seven chapters is to interest the reader, not to turn them off. Had someone not sent me a copy of the book electronically; I would never have read it. They are sometimes difficult to read and they give details that a) involve characters who will be dead three chapters later and
are irrelevant to the plot. If you can read though the first few chapters – better yet, just read the ‘interludes’ – you’ll find a reasonably interesting novel with many plot twists. That said, I don’t think that the author covered enough ground. We are told about attempts to introduce impeachment legislation as a throwaway line, and then we never hear any more about it. Further, everyone on the Texan side claims that there is a serious mismatch in military force, but the bad side believes that a quick invasion of Texas is military impossible quickly – the Texans, it seems, are better equipped than the immediately available regular army units. The rest, it seems, are in Germany (why?) and the Middle East. Further, civil disobedience in the surrounding states makes it hard for the bad guys to send supplies through their territory, when the US has a massive air transportation system. Given the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason why the Feds could not ship supplies via the air – flimsy excuses about the reliability of the USAF do not cut it. This would be very limited compared to ground transport, but if the objective is to capture a single point, why not equip a bridge of fast ground vehicles?
We also learn nothing beyond frustrating hints of the outside world. The Middle East and Israel are apparently American protectorates, but the forces needed to do that must be very large. Why, then, is Texas better armed than all the feds have immediately available?
“Treasury's face took on a somber mien. "Still, I can't help but note that the Great Depression took a matter of days to wreck the economy. This might, or—admittedly—might not, be as bad as that. It's fair to say though, General, that when you invade you had better win quickly." (CH. 10)
The Texans manage to threaten the US ecomony, but there are very little details of how that happens and what its effects are. Many other things are missing: the Internet is barly mentioned, the air force is missing almost entirly from the book and there are no nuclear weapons even threatened. Rottemeyer does not sound like the type of person who would not nuke Texas if she thought her power was fading. She had ample opportunity to gain control – legally – of most of the US’s weapons and the ability to use them.
One of the books major problems is that it features characters that would be interesting in their own right – although how believable is another matter – but stand as caricatures of American political figures. Hilary Clinton is the one most reviewers have pointed at, but someone called Janet Reno is also caricatured. Worse, the good guys are mainly American patriots – it would be nice to see someone who had other motives (escape from the feds for drug offences, perhaps?) on the ‘good’ side.
The author either dislikes lesbians or is seeking to shock people. The subplot of the president’s relationship with her army commander (also female) is unnecessary and adds little, not even a steamy scene, to the plot.
The book does have some very dramatic scenes. The president’s speech to the new constitutionals convention and her subsequent death are very tense and uncertain. The reader is reminded of the death of JFK, but few real heartstrings are pulled for the reader – by the last pages everyone is convinced that she has as much right to live as Hitler. Hitler, at least, was fairly honest about his plans for the future.
I am no expert in US politics, so I won’t comment on the likelihood of this situation developing or the amendments made to the constitution at the end of the book. What I will say is that the president, Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, might well be right when she says, at the end, that no matter how they try, they’ll fall back into the same trap again and again. The heroine responds that that might not be a bad thing – America can handle a revolution once in a while. I consider the first attitude to be defeatist and short-sighted and the second to be irresponsible. Americans may or may not disagree.
From me, the book gets three stars out of five. Good points: interesting plot. Dramatic Outcome. Good overall view. Bad Points: Seriously bad writing in places (and in the wrong place too). Too short in places. No international aspect beyond Chinese arms deliveries. No really final resolution. Characters caricatures instead of real people. I recommend buying the electronic or the paperback copy. The good bits of the book don’t make ignoring the bad bits worth the extra money.
Final Note. A guy called Mathew White did a WebPage speculating on the possibilities of a second American revolution. Someone in the book refers to something very similar.
"Willi . . . I am sorry but some of those states, especially those around Texas, hate you and everything you stand for. If you push, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona . . . maybe the whole deep south and quite a bit of the Midwest might 'just say no'." Remember that red and blue map from the elections in 2000? Well, imagine the red portion in outright rebellion. It could be that bad. If you push them into it we could face a real war, and we could lose it. I can't answer for that. I won't.” (chapter 9)
-
"in my opinion"The US can spent nearly 50 years of post WWII political capital on Iraq and it has very little left in the bank right now.
truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum.(even though it is a NOT a political discusion)
-tom w
-
The reviews sound greatSpecial Operations must read, October 12, 2005
Reviewer: M. Sexton (USA) - See all my reviews
Having read the book and been impressed with how author John Poole has distilled into a readable and understandable format, the tactics techniques and ideology of muslim fighters, I have gained a perspective on their tactical methods that I did not have or could not have learned by a generalized study.
Gunny Poole has done the hard work of research for the grunt and special operations soldier. It is a book that gives a TACTICAL perspective explaining the subtleties of the eastern (south west asia in this case) tactical mindset.
As a current Special Forces soldier who has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq I RECCOMEND THIS BOOK.
I am also humbled by the experience and knowledge of those here and elsewhere who have reviewed and reccommended Gunny Poole's books and only offer my perspective from a sergeant's and operators viewpoint.
This book is not meant to give a big picture theorist a perspective on middle eastern culture and geo politics. And rightly so. It is a thought provoking and pertinent study for the soldier on the ground. Fighting the militants (insurgent).
No military study is currently availble that gives the tactical mindset and explains it as Mr Poole has. The only other that comes close is Afghan Guerilla war, a series of vignettes in the words of the Afghan mujahideen, which the soldier then has to try to figure out their tactical method within the given context.
Gunny Poole's Book Tactics of the Crescent Moon is better way for soldiers to learn the enemy.
If you want a book about US failures and how our real strategy is land and resource aquisition as one reviewer here lamented about, look elesewhere.
This book is for the guy on the ground who will be doing the fighting and the men that will plan and lead those operations.
quotes from the link in the above post about this book are reviews from amazon.comThis book could turn the tide in the war on terror, November 19, 2004
Reviewer: Joseph P. Bernard "jbernard29" (US State Department) - See all my reviews
This book is truly remarkable. In Tactics of the Crescent Moon, John Poole provides an incredibly insightful analysis of the Middle Eastern problem and our role in trying to resolve it. He explains extremely complicated issues with remarkable clarity, examining them from historical, political, cultural, military and moral perspectives. Despite the immense scope of the book, his key insights never get lost in the complexity of his subject matter. At the most fundamental level, John Poole provides detailed tactical descriptions of exactly how our Middle Eastern adversaries fight. To illuminate the big picture, he clearly shows how these tactical examples relate to the larger cultural and political issues. He goes on to propose solutions that can help American privates survive, help commanders make better decisions, help generals develop better strategies and even help politicians make better military policies. Most importantly, the book's profound morality offers insight on how to win what might be the most important battle of all, the battle for the moral high ground. We will not win this war on terrorism if we lose touch, even for a moment, with the great and noble values that make us who we are. John Poole reminds us that when Americans go to war we bring with us our honor, our compassion, our love of freedom, and our belief in the equality of all people. Our morality is our ultimate weapon.
I wonder if Steve and the scenario designers for CMx2 at BFC will find time to read this book??
:confused:
-tom w
-
How true is this?Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:At any rate, I would think that while maintaining the current force levels in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US doesn't have the option of invading Syria anyway.
It's all hypothetical. Rice may hiss and booh at the Syrians, but there aren't enough boots on the ground to present a credible threat of invasion.\
I don't know what military capability (boots on the ground) the US has left (in reserve).
How many men/units/tanks/Strykers would it take to invade Syria?
how much does the US have not committed Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did they move the armour from Korea to Iraq?
I remember hearing abuot a HUGE redployment of at least one whole armoured division from South Korea to Iraq?
What's left to fight with?
just curious
-tom w
) but on a nice G4 iMac that does the trick for me JUST fine. 
! Many thanks to all who have posted here and the guy that did all the CMETO mods and that scenario pack too! 
are irrelevant to the plot. If you can read though the first few chapters – better yet, just read the ‘interludes’ – you’ll find a reasonably interesting novel with many plot twists. 
truer words have rarely been spoken on this forum.
We could be in Syria well before 2007
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
latest news....
wired news web page