aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_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.Originally posted by flamingknives:This one really ought to be up there with the stickies
-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.Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.
An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.
The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.
(snip)
more in between
(snip)
There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.
And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.
What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.
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.Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.
An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.
The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.
(snip)
more in between
(snip)
There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.
And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.
What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.
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.Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.
An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.
The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious.
(snip)
more in between
(snip)
There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.
And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.
What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.
it was an interesting OPINION article...
-tom w
[ October 20, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
sorryOriginally posted by Morrigan:he's just correcting the spelling of duel vs dual
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.Originally posted by Tarquelne:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fytinghellfish:
[QB] Not, the problem is that it is tracked.
As a reason not to accept it that makes sense. How surprising.
</font> -
That makes sense to me. But is it a fair statement?In CMSF, I'm sure it will be tactically challenging to command one, 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. However, I don't think it is suited to spearheading an Invasion of Syria."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!In summary, the tank was the single most important ground combat weapon in the war. Tanks led the advance, compensated for poor situational awareness, survived hostile fire, and terrorized the enemy. These attributes contributed much to the rapid rate of advance from Kuwait to Baghdad. A senior Marine Corps infantry officer offered an appropriate summation of what the authors repeatedly heard: “Everybody wanted tanks.”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.• Tanks led the advance. Almost always, Army, Marine Corps, and British tanks led force movements to contact. Tanks were essential because situational awareness regarding enemy forces was poor at the regimental/
brigade level and below. While operational-level commanders often had enough situational awareness to meet their needs, tactical commanders needed a degree of detail that was rarely available. As a result, there was constant danger of encountering the enemy without warning. Since the tanks could survive hits from a concealed enemy, they were the weapons of choice for the “tip of the spear.”8 Indeed, this operation demonstrated the inverse relationship between force protection and situational awareness. In circumstances where situational
awareness was poor, as it normally was at the brigade/
regimental level and below, there was a clear need for strong armor protection.
• Tanks immediately took the enemy under fire. Tanks were immediately responsive when contact was made with the enemy. Compared to artillery that could respond
in 2 to 4 minutes, or fighters or bombers that could arrive on scene in 5 to 20 minutes, tanks could open fire within seconds. The 3d Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division noted that their infantry fired few antiarmor weapons because tanks were almost always in front and engaged the enemy in timely fashion.
• Tanks were highly effective in urban operations. According to conventional wisdom, tanks should be extremely vulnerable in urban terrain, but in fact tanks led most advances into Iraqi cities, most famously during the Baghdad “thunder runs.” This was true in the case of the Army, Marine, and British forces. The Army’s 3d Infantry Division developed an urban operations
technique in which two Abrams would be closely followed by two Bradleys with mounted infantrymen and often an engineer vehicle behind the Bradleys. The tanks would flush the enemy when Iraqi forces fired on the tanks or ran from them, allowing the Bradleys to employ their 25mm cannons and machineguns. The British used similar techniques in Basra where tanks would lead the advance, often smashing holes in buildings that allowed the infantry to enter and occupy the structure. The Marines also used tanks as the leading element going into urban areas. The most important difference between Army and Marine Corps urban tactics was that the Marines employed more dismounted infantry who operated close to the tanks. The British also made extensive use of their armored vehicles in urban operations
in the Basra area.
• Tanks had shock effect.
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!, but also known for user interface that is best described as "outdated". POA2 looks to be an improvement in that regard, but it isn't how we'd do the UI(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 ]
-
Originally posted by Morrigan:
If this is the way to the future I would guess Mac titles (games) will become few and far better and even in 2-3 years there may be no new Mac development if Mac gamers can run PC games on Apple hardware running windoze:mad:
Boo hiss EVIL bill gates, he wins AGAIN when Mac users buy WinXP to run on their in Macintel boxes. ugh!
-tom w
-
more on POA2 here:
web page for Point of attack 2Point of Attack 2 is a "game" unlike any other ever available for the civilian market. It is not for everyone--it is a product designed to accurately model the minute intricacies of modern weapons systems to a degree which casual gamers may find cumbersome, even excessive. POA2 values 'brutal' realism above all else.more
Point of Attack 2 is an astonishingly comprehensive and detailed modern combat simulator. The weapons database includes hundreds of systems from circa 1960 into those the might be fielded the near future, all modeled in amazing detail. The ammunition types include cluster munitions, missiles, bombs, rockets, kinetic energy rounds, and even hypothetical energy weapons. Systems that are modeled include:Point Missile Defense
Radar
Laser
Decoy systems
Jamming systems
NBC defense
Mines
Remote sensors
Naval units
Air forces
Terrorists
Civilians
and much 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
-
OKWhat this means is that, at best, the US commander's knowledge of his own forces' locations is still incomplete. Far better than at any time in the past, but still incomplete. And due to technical limitations, it is also probable that some of that incomplete information is inaccurate. In theory this isn't the case, but there are reasons for calling things a theory instead of a reality
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 ]
CM:SF and LANGUAGE
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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