PseudoSimonds

She shot you down, huh?

Your doc hasn't found anything strong enough yet? :mad: :mad: :mad:

Me neither. It's good to see we've driven him to drink though. I'll count that as a Total Victory. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I think you always were and are just now realizing it. :mad: :mad:

I'm thinking Coventry lads ... what say you? Joe </font>

Render unto Pseudo the things which are Pseudo's. Namely, a turn and certain victory. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I was hoping for a car analogy.

Oi, The Office never had a character called Dwight ! Ah, you're talking about the cheap&inferior American copy... Gareth's got more character than the types in your version combined. And my The Office quote's better, too. :mad: </font>

Oh, that's Dwight from The Office, not really, but it is. :mad: :mad:

It's the Inhumane Society!! :mad: :mad: *locks door* BWAAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! :mad:

Bloody strays! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: *stuffs angryolized TNT in litter box*

h) Don't care. ✓

You must've missed this one : EDIT: ...and Schrullenhaft suggested something like it on the very first page. [ September 18, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: PseudoSimonds ]

We prefer to kick it. ....and then incinerate the boot. :mad: :mad: :mad:

What's the matter, can't they handle the heat? BWAAHAHAAHAAHAA!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

That's what I've been saying BTW, there was a report today that the supreme military commander in Afghanistan has requested 1000 ground troops and 1500 more aviation (helos mostly, I think) troops to come in and help out. Guess what? Nobody seems to have them, or so they say. Great Brittain says they are tapped out, Germany can't proivde troops for the combat ops in the south, while Italy, France, Spain, and Turkey say that their relatively tiny contributions to the Lebanese force have them all maxed out as well. The US is also understrength in Iraq and Afghanistan according to recent reports, but there are enough problems keeping the current levels where they are at. So... where are 200k troops supposed to come from when apparently nobody can come up with even 1/10th that amount? Obviously this could change if the other nations wanted it to, at least to a degree, but my earlier comments about the lack of interest and/or ability of deployments outside of home countries is pretty apparent. 2500 is such a tiny comittment. Steve </font>

Hey, it's just lines of text in the manual. Once you're in the campaign just pretend it's some generic Middle Eastern country you're beating the crap out of, if that somehow makes you feel better about it. Cool, that logic works both ways!

Um, because that flushes a fair bit of work they've already done down the toilet and yet further delays us getting our hands on a CMx2 game. No thanks.

And making it a fictional country will? That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback? </font>

No you aren't. You add more units to the editor than are available in the campaign. That's it. If this was such a concern why was Syria chosen as the setting in the first place? :confused: That is true but that's not the point. It's about enjoyment and immersion. Will weird people like me enjoy the campaign more if you use real world settings and locales? Yes. Will anyone enjoy the campaign less if you use real world settings and locales? No. So to recap, you can still have all the cool fancy units that people want by just making them available in the editor. No drawback. Additionally you will be adding some enjoyment to the campaign for some players. No drawback.

And making it a fictional country will? That's the point I'm getting at. Now you mentioned that you knew lots of people that were immersed in FSW. Now put FSW in a realistic setting. Would any of those people feel that the game is less immersive because of the real-world setting? I doubt it. A couple of them would probably feel an even higher sense of immersion and then add to that the players that were originally put off by the fictional enemy. Where's the drawback?

So the solution is to make a bunk country and then expand the TO&E in the modules so that it'll be bunk as well? If the backstory is just a few lines of text here and there why is it so important that it be so realistic? Since the actual gameplay in the campaign won't be affected either way, which "lines of text in the manual" do you think will affect immersion more: a somewhat improbable backstory, or a completely fabricated opponent? I'll put it another way. Let's say you go with the Syria setting with a backstory that's a bit improbable. Some players will be willing to buy into it and for them it'll add a real-world immersion to the campaign. Other players won't buy into the backstory and they won't get the added immersion. On the other hand if you go with the fictional setting nobody will get that added immersion.

:mad: ^{<FONT FACE="Symbol">¥</FONT>}

Well, I thought presenting "realistic" settings was what CM was all about which I was surprised to see this whole fictional country idea even suggested, where you just get to make up a TO&E and toss in whatever fancy equipment you want. I far prefer the Glukx's suggestion of sticking with the realistic Syrian TO&E for the campaign and then just allowing for an expanded pool of units for scenario makers to do what they like.

Why fictionalize the country? Why not fictionalize the geopolitical situation such that Syria ends up with the fancy equipment that some people want in the modules? Either way you're seriously messing with reality but I think the latter would be preferable since it would retain some of that real-world immersion.