aka_tom_w

This comment and the serious nature of the consquences as stated by NG cavscout should absolutely be considered in the game design and development process and somehow reflected in the gameplay IMO. -tom w [ October 13, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

FAR more complex indeed! -tom w

I am guessing they have thought of that. But the solution is bound to be abstracted in "easy" way to make the game still fun and playable. (I hope) -tom w

"I'm pretty sure the cost of armoring a US Soldier is close to $1000. " By that you mean body armour alone not counting the cost of any other equipement? -tom w

I agree with this completely Please consider: " I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all." Now "What if" scenarios like THAT could make the game fun and worthwhile. -tom w

While researching this on the web I found this OLD game text saved for posterity Commodore 64 interesting:

What about these two M1131 Stryker FSV - Fire Support Vehicle M1134 Stryker ATGM - Anti Tank Guided Missile That ATGM Styker is the one we need and I don't see it in the Company Org chart for the ToE of the Stryker company. and I understand the MSG Strykers are not ready for prime time. (still having problems like some one here reported if you point the gun sideways and fire it the recoil tips the Stryker on its side??? :confused: Is that true?) interesting -tom w

From BBC news on Syrian politics More news.... (this even sounds like it could be a "kernal" of the up coming BFC "back story" for CM:SF.... he he

JasonC's points are well taken -tom w

Please recall that Steve said they would consider this suggestion: (I don't know if we can seriously expect any more than that?)

Other Means Member Member # 11780 posted September 15, 2005 12:07 PM Steve, can I reiterate my suggestion, which is abstracted enough to be do-able (IMHO and ready to be corrected) while enough to add the WIA/POW dynamic people seem to want? State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player. They are in this state for X time, say 3 mins. If they are still within command radius after this they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered. Recovered will mean they have Z chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle. State 2) If after X time they are outside of command radius but within Y distance of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear. Or possibly change them to a captured icon. State 3) If after X time they are out of command radius but are not within Y of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death vs recovery in the AAR/next battle. ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature. Can I add that when the WIA becomes captured by the enemy, the player still sees only the evac icon, thereby keeping FOW for hidden enemies. In the AAR the evac icon will show "captured". -Other Means Reply: ----------------- Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted September 15, 2005 04:34 PM It's not a heated argument from my side. You just have to keep clear that new possibilities exist but so do limitations. Hardware, programming, art, other design issues, etc. all have to be taken into consideration. So in theory what you are picturing is possible, it just isn't practical. That's all. Tons of things are not practical though possible, and perhaps even desirable, so don't feel bad And to make sure I was understood... the abstracted suggestion by Other Means is being considered. No telling what kinds of problems Charles will discover with it Steve

Well I agree for realism sake casualties "should" slow things down a LOT! However, the game will become REALLY boring and perhaps border on unplayable if the player must med-evac all WIA's. I think somewhere in this thread Steve said the player would absolutely NOT be able to move or kill or med-evac any WIA's and that it would "somehow" (insert BFC Magic Bullet here) be abstracted, otherwise the game would fall apart right there. I am sure Steve was aware of the theatre of operations and the near future time frame when he posted to this thread with the black and white edict that WIA's won't NOT ever be moved by the player. (If I understood that correctly). Perhaps I should review this thread, (BUT its a BIG one!) -tom w

come on! Any body who has ever watched Toy Story knows: "A good soldier never leaves a man behind!" -Army Soldier Commander in Toy Story Sorry couldn't help it. -tom w

bump Just for fun since Steiner started a new thread for this issue. -tom w

Hey, and don't forget to give the Syrian's Home Field advantage! -tom w

WOW I thought the thread and the post was a joke! NO joke. BBC News:

Welcome 19K30 I hope you will feel free to post more often with your thoughts and experiences. Thanks. -tom w

Agreed! Although WWII did see Japanese fighter pilots use commit suicide to fullfill their mission objectives so the prinicple is not without historical precedent. But the game will be better off without them for sure. -tom w [ October 12, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

grunt_GI Junior Member Member # 5553 posted October 11, 2005 08:56 PM Hello Battlefront, Love the idea, I have been a loyal CM player even after Apple dropped RAVE support with OSX Would like to know if CMSF will be dual platform and what you THINK the hardware requirements will be...haven't seen much on that in this section. Will a 1 Ghz with 64MB of VRAM be enough horsepower?

]If you have not read this blog you should! That was a great AAR of action at Mosul. -tom w Luckily I made a mirror after his famous Men in Black post, you can find it here . [/quote My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up? Andreas [/qb]</font>

This thread might help you if you are seriously looking for hints on tactics: Advice for guys that don't know anything about modern combat tactics with Strykers. There are some REAL gems of wisdom and insight in there. -tom w

Thanks for the insightful and very informative reply. -tom w [ October 16, 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This web site says Syria has ALREADY bought the Kornet! army-technology.com Says Russia has sold Kornets to Syria!

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: It had to do with rarity. Oh yeah OK I will give you that one, because I never "buy units" so the whole rarity could have been something we did not agree on. But that was not a big deal for me Just a matter of opinion and difference of play style. NOW back to Syria and those T80's BRING 'em on! -tom w

OK this is how the victory points should go (WAY off topic but somehow related to Side balance) every time a weapon get destroyed or a round or missile is fired there should be database the keeps track of how much it costs (in REAL US dollars) for each player to play that game, and the one that spends the least and gets the MOST bang for the Buck wins! I am laughing here because obviously some of the new anti tank missiles cost around US $100,000 EACH! So the player that spends the least amount of cash to achieve the objective WINS (oh AND yes, I am joking!) -tom w