aka_tom_w

What???!!!! You mean they are NOT going to ship a FREE BabelFish (BabelFish.org) with every copy! Screw it then! I won't be buying it! Bah! :mad: -tom w

For those new to the game or new to the forum or if you have been away for awhile and came back to see whats new, its all here: synopsis thread The first post of the first page of this thread has been frequently updated with all the latest news about the new game, if you are looking for answers or info on the new game look here first . Great Work Winecape! -tom w [ October 21, 2005, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

latest info: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted October 20, 2005 09:44 PM We have a different system for modeling movment and fatigue. Soldiers will basicaly move at about the same speed on the US side, but certain ones will tire out a lot quicker (like a Javelin or M240 team). Terrain is also a big factor. Big difference between running down a paved street than negotiating extremely rough and rutted terrain. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted October 21, 2005 12:18 AM I'm not sure about panicking quite yet. One thing that is VERY different in CMx2 is that Suppression and Morale are two different factors. Tired troops will be Suppressed more easily than rested troops. That is pretty much a no brainer cause and effect relationship. US troops will Panic in CMx2 if you screw up enough. Remember, there is a difference between Panic, Routed, and Broken. Panic is a temporary state that hinders the unit's ability to do what is expected of him right then and there. Probably not something that is dire. Routed means the unit has progressed to a more deeply troubled state that it will need quite a bit of time to recover from. Broken means the unit is, for all intents and purposes, combat ineffective for the rest of the game. We had difficulty in CMx1 getting this to behave as well as we wanted it to sometimes, but generally that is how it worked. In CMx2 it will just work better. Steve

This was posted in the "back story" thread. It looks like the hypothetical 2007 timeframe may not wait that long. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the skirmishing has already started.

I second that. -tom w

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure. But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed. BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON! he he -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure. But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed. BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON! he he -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Philippe, that is the EASY way to understand it for sure. But, as a result of lots of complaints about no "campaign" in CMx1 BFC has chosen to have a "Story" and a single player (US) multibattle "operation" style campaign. I would suggest because some folks here wanted a "story line" and units that "progress" through the campaign/story, some form of backstory was needed. BUT yeah sure it is a lot easier to just say, what the heck, it happens in Syria there are modern forces (sort of, on both sides) and they do battle, NOW BRING IT ON! he he -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article. it was an interesting OPINION article... -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article. it was an interesting OPINION article... -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

There is more from that link if you want to read the whole article. it was an interesting OPINION article... -tom w [ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

sorry Thanks I was confueed I thought he was refering to dual boot specs on the new macs (since I understand they are NOT dual boot machines I was confused) thanks -tom w

oops [ October 20, 2005, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Re: the showgirls.... I guess NOT Everybody Wanted Tanks. -tom w

Whoops, right. "Not wheeled" is what I meant to write, but apparently the feat of looking at a picture of a tracked vehicle and then writing "wheeled" was just too much for me. As a reason not to accept it that makes sense. How surprising. </font>

That makes sense to me. But is it a fair statement? "However, I don't think it (the Stryker) is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria" Is that the intention in CM:SF? Steve did say something about the Stryker Brigade being the primary unit. But there would be tanks as well. Does the intense desire to model and simulate the Stryker Brigade in the game possibly overlook the actual role the Stryker Brigade was intended for? (as per the post above: " but in real life, I would see the Stryker Brigade as being more of a rapid reaction force to be airlifted to, for example, Sudan, to quell a crisis or participating in peacekeeping or counter-insurgency operations.") I am curious. -tom w [ October 19, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Apple announced new hardware today. 2 new G4 laptops and New Software called Aperture which is has a RAW format digital workflow for digital images. Check the Apple news of the day here. for all you Mac fans. -tom w

If thats how to play the game in CM:SF then I want a platoon of M1A1's on my Side! I like the focus of the article: "Heavy tanks are where its at!" -tom w [ October 19, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Very interesting I think these are important notes and quotes from the article (especially important for how to model CM:SF realistically and maybe even play to win, if the game works like this:) this article is definitely worth a read, I hope Steve and the BFC folks take a good look at it. Thanks -tom w [ October 19, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well one thing is has been made public about the Mac version.. They are clear the PC and Mac versions (if there is one) won't ship simultaneously as in the past CMx1 games. sadly the glory days of the simultaneous release are over.... Mac users will probably wait longer for a playable OS X demo and the game its self now. I doubt that running WinXp on a Macintel box will be an option by the time the PC version of CM:SF ships, so Mac users will either need access to a PC or need to wait, unless they are developers and have advanced access to "prototype" Macintel hardware, for testing purposes. But thats just my guess. -tom w

I understand completely I was not being critical. BUT my point is there will be no incentive to develop and release Mac games if all Mac gamers can play the native PC version on WINXP on their Macs. I am saddened by the logic of this and not at all critical that you will be playing PC games you can't get on the MAC. The whole thing with the Havoc Physics game code that no Mac game developer has chosen to buy will mean that all games using the Havoc collision detection code will NEVER be released on the Mac . oh well -tom w

Thank the heavens for THAT! (now lets not talk about the interface for the Map editor in CMx1 that was truly the kludge from hell BUT that's another sorry ) Any chance POA2 can be used as a reference for the data base of specs on units??? I guess you cannot admit it if you are using or looking at their data, but it would appear ALL the technical data and specifications for ALL kinds of weapons systems are all in the public domain and they are giving away ALL that stuff for free download on their web page. (re: the manual and all the specs and charts and things I think) just wondering -tom w [ October 18, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

more on POA2 here: web page for Point of attack 2 more OK That is sort of interesting but it looks HARD to master (and again there is no Mac version that I can see) -tom w

OK Thanks for filling me in Umm But how will it affect game play? The All seeing God Like player will still have WAY more info then the real life US commander even in 2007? Or are you folks working on that part of the problem? "due to technical limitations, it is also probable that some of that incomplete information is inaccurate." How does that statement impact game play? And what of the Syrian's?? I am guessing they don't have anything like this so on the most realistic FOW setting the Syrian player could be completelly hobbled by lack of intel about anything about almost anything on the battlefield? (just wondering how this will all play out in the game?? :confused: ) Thanks again for the update -tom w [ October 18, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]