Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

kevinkins's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. Thanks Mark .. I forgot about that while away from gaming so long.
  2. "Maneuvre Warfare" would require a at least a few reinforced motor rifle battalions I think.
  3. Hey ... no one has read the stimulus bill completely. I bet support for BF is buried in the section for the bullet train from Orlando to Vegas. But don't expert anything for 5 years until the environmental impact is done.
  4. Hey Steve thanks for the response. By graphics I really meant the skins not the 3D environment. I read that a big breakthrough came over a few cocktails and napkins - nice.
  5. But's lets not focus just on graphics. It was the 3D - WEGO - replay that provided the discontinuity. If it were only graphics why is the CMBO forum still alive and kicking? With they said .. what was the BIG breakthrough from a coding point of view. Was it really graphics related or game play related? Kevin
  6. Great job. I wonder if BF knew a decade passed so quickly without your post?
  7. Maybe BF can confirm the date but if so congrats from a long timer. Had the CMBO demo a few months before release. A person I was email gaming Age of Rifles with pointed me to BF. I was so blown away I ended up helping with BB and AK. Turned 40 in the beginning now 50 on the 22nd. Where did the freaking time go?
  8. I still think the time for a designer to test the draft scenario could be shortened. I am all for more tools of any kind. Kevin
  9. It's a good tough fight from the blue side for sure ... but would any US Company move through a defile like that without close air (helicopter, UAV) support? Just a thought. I am not being negative on a superior scenario - just fostering conversation. This would be an interesting scenario for folks to edit on their own to layer in just the right force to pass the defile with little to no losses for blue. Could be instructive. Kevin [ March 11, 2008, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Kevin Kinscherff ]
  10. In my experiance I agree with the last two posts. The weapons are lethal and cover is used for concealment until you have the firepower ready to cover the area around you after you exposed your troops to possible enemy fire. I think this is why many seemly small/short scenarios have/need longer play times. Kevin
  11. For many years designers have been asking for scripted AI. Now we have it for CMSF. I guess some other wargames have it but I can't think of any. None of the ones I owned over the year did. It is a great development. That said, it is time consuming and many designers have little time to actually play the game. Some accelerated mode would be a big help. Even the old AI vs AI mode would help - that mode was in many games in the past. [ March 09, 2008, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Kevin Kinscherff ]
  12. The map was actually very nicely drawn by the designer but far too large for four tanks to operate in. It's really a shame that more attention can't be paid to QBs. Sure, random maps we may never get, but the selection of the right number and type of forces must be within easy reach. Kevin
  13. The selection is straight forward but CMSF perhaps needs some rules for unit selection per terrain/battle type. Just experimented by loading a small size with blue heavy infantry and blue only got 4 M1A1s. A mix of tanks and afvs/infantry would be fine. I played the battle and at the end I had a total. However, there were no infantry reinforcments and those 4 tanks fought against around 30 infantry formations - squads and teams. BTW all sides failed to at terrain and parameters - but I was awarded 1000 points (did cause a lot of killed and wounded). Must be a odd parameter setting. Kevin
  • Create New...