[New Screen shots posted on the Blog by Moon]

Excellent. Glad to hear AA is in.

[New Screen shots posted on the Blog by Moon]

Those screenshots look terrific. The models look absolutely amazing and the terrain and especially the foliage looks very nice.

The only concern I have is the lack of anti-aliasing. Hopefully this is on the way, and the lack of anti-aliasing is just a result of being alpha/early beta test phase. There are some major jaggies which mar the otherwise terrific looking models -- this is particularly obvious on the first image (with the four Abrams). Other than that it looks great.

[Random Stryker armour question]

What is "RR"?

[Wide Screen Support.]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Dissapointing

Agreed. I'm actually very suprised to hear that the engine wasn't designed ground up to support 4x3 and 16x9.

My impression is that the market is trending heavily to widescreen. Certainly at least for laptops, widescreen is becoming close to standard. I prefer 4x3 myself, but when I purchased a new laptop, I had to do some hunting to find a non-widescreen laptop that had all the features I wanted. From what I can tell, Apple, HP/Compaq, Dell, and Sony seem to have moved their entire laptop lines to widescreen only. Just from a rough survey of recent desktop computer purchases of friends and colleagues, it seems like desktop monitors are also heading to widescreen, although not nearly as rapidly. I'd say maybe 60% of new desktop monitor purchases I've seen in the last year have been widescreen (granted I work and live in a relatively affluent community so that might have some influence on monitor purchases).

Considering CMx2 is a brand-new engine which is meant to last quite a number of years, I would argue that it makes a lot of sense to ensure that it can easily support widescreen. I think CM:SF is going to feel very dated in a year or two if it doesn't support widescreen. I personally only have 4x3 screens, but I can imagine for a widescreen user, lack of 16x9 support will be a significant mark against CM:SF.

[Immobilisation - can BFC be moved on the Issue?]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

As far as CM:SF goes, the Strykers and to a lesser extent the Hummers, should be far less vulnerable to single point failures, such as a broken track, can't readily have their tires shot out (run flats), can survive one (for Hummers) or more more (for Strykers) wheels being destroyed and still be able to at least exit a kill zone under their own power.

Excellent point John. I've been doing a ton of reading about the Stryker (mostly in preparation for SM:SF) and there are quite a number of reports which support exactly what you've described. Strykers are often able to exit combat after being hit and losing tires, where a tracked vehicle in the exact same situation might very well have been immobilized with a track problem. On the flip side, presumably there are going to be situations where going off-road on a Stryker is going to be a big immobilization risk, whereas a tracked vehicle would be fine.

[Small Bone]

I assume real-time is pausable? Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

Also can we switch between real-time and turn-based. Say for example using real-time until contact with the enemy and then switching to turn-based. Or maybe using turn-based and then switching to real-time to speed things up after most of the enemy has been destroyed?

[First follow up Module]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for Brits before Germans...

I'll put in a vote for Brits.

So no chance of having the Russians intervene in Syria in some future module? I know it wouldn't be realistic, but it would be awful fun to have the Russians in. As Holo mentioned that would also give everyone much more opportunity to create custom scenarios and campaigns.

[AAR from an American tanker in Iraq]

Originally posted by pad152:

I think the biggest issue was not having a McAruther type to take command once Iraq fell. Some one who could lay down the law without 500 lawers telling him what he could not do! Someone who could teach the Iraqies separation of church and state.

I don't think someone dictating absolute policy would have worked all that well without more boots on the ground. As far as I can tell, we never really had complete control of Iraq. Truly radical changes (even early on, before everything went downhill) probably would have brought us into conflict with the Sadr militia or various other factions. We might have been able to handle them back at the start before they grew in size and power, but not without more troops then we originally had in theatre.

[New Osprey Vanguard on Stryker family of AFVs]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The package deal with the related Hummer family book looks quite appetizing.

I assume you're referring to Amazon's Buy Together Today: $21.22 option for both books. Turns out that's basically a scam. If you price them out individually -- Stryker Combat Vehicles ($10.37) and HMMWV Humvee 1980-2005 ($10.85) -- you discover that $10.37 + $10.85 = $21.22. So the supposed package deal does not give you any financial benefit.

I generally have positive feelings about Amazon, but I do find their advertising "Better Together" package deals which aren't actually deals to be rather questionable from an ethical standpoint.

[Finalizing CM:SF's Setting]

You might be better off checking with some mainstream gamers to see what they prefer rather than talking to grogs. We all are probably going to buy CM:SF no matter what, IMO the real people you should be concerned with is the casual gamers. Maybe you could try posting on more mainstream gaming boards or teaming up with someone like Gamespot for a vote.

[U.S. Embassy attacked in Syria and other stories of note]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Syria because it looked to be an interesting and not all that unlikely adversary.

How about Iran? My impression is that there are still a number of people in the Bush Administration who are hot to trot with trying to take out Iran.

I see a much higher probability of the current administration getting us tangled with Iran than Syria.

[First Scenario Bone]

Originally Posted in Blog

I move my "**** magnet" (aka a tank) around the corner of the hill so it is in full view of the town. True to form, I've got tracers coming from all over the place (except the rubbled house, hehe) and bouncing off the front of the tank.

Is that realistic? I'd think that both standard doctrine and common sense would be not to shoot small arms at a tank, but instead wait until it was close enough and then try to ambush it.

Why give your position away to something you probably can't hurt? Or is the idea to get the crew to button up?

[First Scenario Bone]

For those who can't find it, it's here.

It took me a while to figure out what C'Rogers was reading and responding to!

[Weekend Bone]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

PSY,

I think you've got it wrong. The written status is the current actual status. The symbols are the positive or negative modifiers the unit has in that stat. So, the unit is "nervous" now but the positive symbol means it makes morale checks with a positive modifier. Clear?

So the green +'s or red x's are the part that do not change? So an elite unit would have either 1-2 +'s in each attribute and a poorly trained green unit would likely have 2 x's in each attribute; and the text descriptions would range up and down based on the status of the unit? Okay, that makes a lot more sense.

[Weekend Bone]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

These secondary Attributes (Bonuses) do not change within a scenario. Well, except for Leadership since the Leader can be replaced.

There are five positions; +2, +1, Neutral, -1, -2.

So if I understand this correctly, in the current screenshot the team is listed as Regular, Rested, and Nervous. These will not change at any point in the battle, instead we'll have Nervous +1 or Rested -2.

If my interpretation is correct, I suspect this will be very confusing to new players. I would think someone looking at the UI would focus on the names and less on the + or x. For example someone looking at Rested -2 would focus on the word "Rested" and pay less attention to the two red x's next to the word -- after all if the UI explicitly uses the word "Rested", the implication is that the team is "Rested" not that it's actually "Tired" because the two red x's next to "Rested" completely change the status of the unit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the names as status changes -- listing "Steady" instead of "Nervous +1" or "Tired" instead of "Rested -2"? I'm sure the Grogs will figure it out and deal with whatever interface you provide, but I think the casual players will find the current interface very confusing (again assuming I'm interpreting your remarks on no changes to the secondary attributes correctly).

[Question about sounds]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

In lieu of a swap-in English set of the Syrian voice sounds (which modders will do within a couple of months anyway), IMHO, even better would be a toggleable "subtitle" option, that would show a translation of what the Syrian soldiers are saying in text, either at the bottom of the screen (good enough, IMHO), or near the unit (even better, but probably more work to implement).

Great idea YankeeDog.

[M107 Barrett .50 cal Rifle]

Sniper Squad ... Additionally, the third member of the sniper team is equipped with an M203 rifle system to provide protection and security for the sniper and his spotter as well as a means to break contact if the team is compromised.

This sounds like the three man team consists of a sniper, a spotter, and a third team member armed with an M203, rather than two shooters and a spotter. At least that's my literal reading of the text.

[WW2 game?]

Land, sea or air? Assuming it's a BFC game then the former has been their area of expertise up 'til now, so let's run with that.

It hasn't always been. Back when they were called "Big Time Software" they used to make some kick-ass air war games. I'm still sad we didn't get a Pacific War version of "Over the Reich" and "Achtung Spitfire".

[Holiday in Syria.]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

If you like dictatorships where you have no civil rights, try Mexico. Its closer. Tag

I fail to see how Mexico can be considered a dictatorship using any reasonable definition of the word dictatorship. This is particularly true given the fact that the opposition party won the last presidential election. But even under the pre-Vicente Fox PRI government, calling it a dictatorship is really stretching the definition of the word.

[CM:SF Marines.]

Peter that sounds like a great idea. I'd totally be up for it.

[Viewing OOB]

A roster would be great.

[CM:SF and LANGUAGE]

Originally posted by c3k:

RMC,

It's simple: a NEW game = BETTER interface.

I'll put in a vote with c3k. I think some type of English translation (either subtitles or the option for English voices for non-English units -- whether Syrian, Russian, or German) would be a worthwhile addition to the game.

[Why the secrecy?]

Originally posted by Directive#21:

I am upset that I have spent the past 2 years waiting for a game that isn’t coming.

Isn't that a bit dramatic considering that a WW2 based CMx2 game will be coming out 8-12 months after CM:Shock Force?

Yes, you'll have to wait a bit longer and yes if you're a WW2 afficionado that does suck. But you aren't waiting for a game that isn't coming. You're waiting for a game that won't arrive until after Battlefront takes care of their modern warfare fans.

[Stryker Brigade ToE and vehicle variants]

There are some really nice pro-Stryker quotes from the Blog that Andreas and Martin Krejcirik linked to (on the first page of this thread). Here is CBFTW's "My War Blog" in response to a question on Stryker effectiveness (CBFTW is part of a Stryker Brigade in Iraq):

I remember shortly before our deployment here to Iraq, the Washington Post printed a huge article on what a piece of overpriced **** the Stryker was and how the armor couldn't protect against anything. Which wasn't really an assuring thing to read prior to coming to Iraq. Soldier Of Fortune also tore apart the Stryker in their current issue. These people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Here's the deal, before deployment, if you would have asked me what I thought about the Stryker, I would have told you: No Comment. In fact a lot of soldiers would have told you that. But now that we've been out here and its been combat tested, and we've seen what it's capable of doing, and how it can withstand anything that's thrown at it, I will never say negative thing about the Stryker again, ever. In fact, no lie I don't know of a single person in my Brigade who has anything negative to say about the Stryker anymore. Even people I know who hated it and bad mouthed it every chance they had, talk very highly of it now. Yea, Stykers are kind of an RPG magnet, but it can take a hit, and EVERY vehicle here in Iraq is an RPG magnet. For what we're doing out here, they're perfect, they're extremely mobile, quite (sic - quiet), high speed, the armor works, and it's reliable. People I know who came from a light unit love it, and people who came here from 11Mike world, love it. Tracked vehicles suck in urban environments, too slow, too loud, and they always break down. The big advantage with the Stryker is that it's not a tracked vehicle, which allows it to be extremely mobile and fast. Which is what you need here.

[so, who's happy?]

I'm in. CM:SF looks like it could be a very interesting game. I'm also looking forward to the 2nd CMx2 game (WWII ETO) as well.