hoolaman

I was obviously being too subtle. And I don't think MD was even complaining in the first place, let alone "coming round".

You are wrong, the pointless new "discussion" threads continue unabated.

I know the precendents are as long as yer arm, but it seems like when Japanese forces did it, they managed to have some class about it. I know this could be endlessly debated, but as long as the Syrians in the game fight with some sort of "honour" (I know its an elusive concept) I will be happy to digitally fight them.

I am extremely relieved that there will not be suicide bombers, even if it's only because of technical issues. I know it's part of the modern spectrum of war, I'm just not interested in seeing anyone make game of it at all. Yuck. That news alone makes me much more inclined to buy CMSF.

Even if Santa brings a copy, hopefully its good enough that you will still be neglecting loved ones in February!

Grr. I just lost a long and awesome post! Anyway, in brief, I agree with you about the Afghanistan thing, but I would suggest that your back-story not be too focussed on a terrorism event, if that's what you are suggesting. We hear quite enough about terrorism without being reminded in our leisure time too! The UN exists to prevent aggression between nation-states, and this seems to be the only time it every reaches true consensus. I think the most plausible scenario is: Syrian coup leads to Syrian invasion of a newly westernised Lebanon. In part to prevent Israel doing something drastic, the UN assembles an invasion force... Simple, plausible and not overly political. Oh, its not exactly my idea BTW:

I take your point, but it really depends if the country was responsible in the same way that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I don't think the people of the civilised world are that gullible and bloodthirsty just at the moment. Do you turn the other cheek? Seems like it could have a better result than going on a latter-day crusade in response.

I don't know what all the fuss is about wrt how plausible the scenario might be. The fact is that there is a 100% chance in 2007 of a US led UN coalition invading Syria. It will happen because thats what will be written on the game box. If I buy the game it will be "US, blah blah, Syrian Coup, blah blah." Show me the tanks and the earth-shattering kabooms!

The answer to your casually rhetorical question is of course that if you pull out the very same game from 1967 you would probably be unable to find the rules and most of the counters.

Maybe BFC should be given an unlimited budget by the UN to simulate the worlds armies, and all future conflicts can then be played out on high powered computers with BFC simulations. George - "96%, Total victory Saddam, in your face!" Saddam - "Your use of airpower is totally gamey, I refuse to give up power!"

For those who know absolutely nothing about modern US armaments, (myself being one of those people), here is a nice link to go with the stryker company TOE listed at the start. Army equipment file

Well they do call them tours of duty.

Well I think we are using different terms here...Operations were part of creating scenarios form my point of view where 'modding' to me has always referring to altering the in game graphics. The later I can give you info on but youll have to ask Steve about the former Dan </font>

I bet they originally came up with the groundwork for an Iraq game before the Iraq conflict started. Then when it did start (as if it was ever not going to be started, but I digress), they had to switch to "somewhere in the middle east, (not Iraq, honest!)". Hope BFC's prophetic streak doesn't continue through 2007!

If this is 2007 perhaps they are autonomous robotic trucks.

Good question about casualties Emar. On reflection I am basically withholding judgement until the real announcement in a week (hopefully it really is only a week) when the website is up, the are more than two screenshots, and we can see the real scope of the game.

Yeah I agree especially on the suicide bombers thing. As I posted elsewhere, it will be extremely distasteful to be playing the Arabs and have to hit DETONATE on my suicide bomber unit. Also how do you have legitimate suicide civilians without normal civilians. A big part of their effectiveness is that they could be any dude driving down the road. I doubt regular army soldiers will line up to blow themselves up on purpose. Please make the Arabs mostly conventional forces.

To advance the cause of pointless threads everywhere I thought I might rehash this thread from June. I knew I had heard "Stryker Force" or somesuch before. I wonder was "Stryker Brigade" meant to be the title, cause that would have had a better ring to it. I guess the DoD has all the really cool trademarks.

I am just wondering what sorts of engagement distances (and hence map sizes) will be required to do a modern game really well. If you can easily kill a AFV at 2000-5000m with modern AT weapons, that will make for some monstrous maps to allow proper manouvring. I can't imagine any PC I can afford in the next year can handle 10km x 10km maps with massively improved graphics. And I don't want to see engagement ranges cut down to unrealistic levels to make it easy on hardware.

And their eyes are potent AT weapons:

Yeah I was just about to say, isn't BFC taking their lives into their own hands by doing a game based on stuff that a lot of people here see every day? I mean, the grogglyness was bad enough with gear shrouded in 60 years of mystery, but the nitpicking will be endless with a range of modern gear in current service.

Funny how some things don't change much in 60 years. Some of these look very similar don't you think?

I am still about as disappointed as I was before the announcement, over the scale and philosophy of the game. I think it may not lend itself well to quality multiplayer matchups, which will take away from the community. Having said that I can see the wisdom in making a game of this type. It should be easy to create more plausible and balanced (and fun :eek: ) scenarios than are suggested by the contrived "story". I don't much care what half-baked story has set the scene for the game, as long as the matchups are fun. I hope to see a focus on capable conventional forces up against the US. Otherwise who would want to play the useless Arabs in a QB. I would find it rather distasteful to hit the "detonate" order on my suicide bomber. One more point, I don't think the screenies are really ready for "prime-time". They may be in-game graphics, but they don't give much sense of the touted 1:1 representation, nor just how COOL this game could be. In short I am warming up to the new game as I get it into my head that this is not CMx1 anymoreo. It is probably more a competitor for something like OFP. But I am waiting for more info to get a sense of the game.

I think it is very important to include an editor for campaigns especially because they are single player. If this is the way most new players will experience combat mission, it should be a priority to allow the community to enrich the experience for all. Personally I think it is more important to allow user-made campaigns than two player campaigns. I am of the understanding that custom scenarios and quick battles are still a big part of the game. Seems odd to allow this but castrate the campaigns by allowing them to be finished! CM has never had anything in it that could actually be finished, which I think is a big reason for the game's longevity. The game is only finished when you finally get sick of playing it, not for lack of new battles to play.

I expect the soldiers will have heads in proportion to their bodies. Probably....