Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

PseudoSimonds

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,621

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by PseudoSimonds

    The glorius & immortal thread of Cheery Waffles, unstable TNT and smiling soldiers !

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Prinz Eugen_2:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon:

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

    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>

    0

    New concept for CM:SF setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by MikeyD:

    What I wonder is how the 'brain trust' members of this board could've written all 177 posts on the subject in the original thread and nobody suggested anything like this as a solution? You just love showin' us up, don't you! ;)

    You must've missed this one ;) :

    Originally posted by Glukx Ouglouk:

    Maybe it's not possible, but why not do both Syria and fictional ?

    If you can make a Syrian backstory, do it, so that in the campaign which comes with the game we get real names, real places, and the like - and, of course, no T-80s.

    But in the scenario editor, add a drop-down menu which let the scenario designer choose between "Syria" and "hypothetical OPFOR" (just like we can choose between US and UK in CMx1). If Syria is chosen, the designer will only be able to use syrian equipment and TO&E ; if OPFOR is, he can choose any equipment and TO&E avalaible in the game and the modules (which will be limited to Syrian stuff whith the game alone, but more will come with the modules).

    That way, you even get the opportunity to include other real countries for the red side in future modules if you find it interesting (as long as they share most of their equipments whith Syria, but that's the case, to some extent, for a number of countries using ex-Soviet/Russian equipment).

    Maybe it's unfeasible, or maybe too much work would be needed to implement that, but it seems reasonable to me - as long as you can come with a backstory for Syria, but isn't a minor one still better than none at all ?

    EDIT: ...and Schrullenhaft suggested something like it on the very first page.

    [ September 18, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: PseudoSimonds ]

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cool, that logic works both ways!

    That's what I've been saying :D

    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>

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Paul AU:

    Sequoia said: My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it.

    I agree. "Bad taste" is the least I can say.

    If BFC says they are locked into an America Invades the Middle East - Again, scenario, they can at least make the victim-country generic.

    Quoting Sequioa again: maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

    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! tongue.gif

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people.

    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>

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    We are more constrained in terms of what units we can add later, that's where.

    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:

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Also, I doubt VERY much that any of you guys that are interested in contemporary warfare will NOT by CM:SF if we had a bit of text in the manual you don't like.

    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.

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    A realistic country might help some get into the game more, it might do absolutely nothing for other people.

    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?

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    So for me, having a completely bunk story to back up the game's setting is a major problem for me.

    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.

    0

    Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Rudel is correct. If we go with a strictly "realistic" setting then we need to be consistent. Which is one of the reasons I've suggested that going with a strict "realistic" setting is perhaps not the best way to go.

    Steve

    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.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...