jim crowley
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by jim crowley
-
-
Which would pretty much kick ToW into touch?Originally posted by Rollstoy:Strangely enough, the more I see from CM:SF, the less interest do I have in WW2 themes. I mean, with regard to WW2, we have seen it all, haven't we?!
Best regards,
Thomm
But it won't, of course, because you massively under-estimate the interest in WW2 and the potential in games that portray aspects of it.
In terms of size, scale and diversity in locations, terrain and armaments, there is nothing to touch WW2. Falklands, Gulf War, Iraq, theoretical Syria, are merely skirmishes in comparison.
-
Thanks Steve.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Jim,
We're planning on single player QBs for CM:SF 1.0.
Steve
I must confess that from the time of the original announcement about CMSF, I had zero interest in the subject matter. Being one of those WW2 "bores", I couldn't see anything of interest for me; either modern or, much less, Syrian.
However, the concepts and features of this game are intriguing and while the subject matter still leaves me cold, I shall no doubt buy it to try out those very features. With a view, of course, to seeing how they will work with the next, WW2, installment
The next one will be WW2, won't it?
-
Fixed for CMSF or for subsequent releases?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:At the moment QBs are 2 player only because, as people rightly guessed, the AI tools I just outlined require Human input. Have no fear, we're going to fix that
The resulting AI will likely be better than CMx1, but not as good as it could theoretically be. To make it better we'd have to invest a lot more time than we want to or have to invest. See Tom's quote above Steve
-
From the Wargamer site:
"Recognized global publisher Paradox Interactive announced today that it has signed a worldwide deal with developer Battlefront.com to publish their upcoming PC title "Combat Mission: Shock Force"."
Interesting development.
-
An odd scrap of information, giving some indication that this project still has some life in it, would be welcome.
-
-
Phew! OK, good to hear. WW2 is still good to go and all is right in the world
If only indirectly, I'm sure there will be a lot of positive spin-off from the lessons learned in constructing CMSF, to CMXWW2. So it won't have been all for nothing
From a unashamed WW2 bigot,
-
Nope, no regrets at all. In fact, we feel the exact opposite. What we're working on now is the bleading edge of military simulation. Even the US military doesn't have something like what we're doing. That all on its own is enough to get me up in the morning for another 12 hour work day. For us WWII is going to be booring by comparison. Not only have we already done it, but there is really nothing new to learn compared to what we're doing now.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Dirtweasel,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Recalling back to the reasons given for doing modern first before returning to WWII, in hindsight, all the warts conceeded, do you regret somewhat not chosing either a WWII setting or perhaps Iran as the Red Force?
Steve </font>
-
Oops! Have I made a mistake regarding HMGs? I do apologise.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to pore over every post or screen shot that has been posted, relative to what units are in, or not in, ToW.
Seeing the recent announcement pointing to the "ToW Unit Gallery", as opposed to the " partial unit gallery", I assumed it contained the complete list of units that are in the game. Silly me.
Perhaps some kind soul can point me to the unofficial list of units that are in T0W, that do not appear in the official list of units in ToW?
Markus86. I doubt that the existance, or otherwise, of HMGs in ToW will deter potential buyers who are content to accept WW2 battlefields without smoke, dug-in AT guns, platoon mortars, enterable buildings or a shred of C&C.
-
There are no HMGs in ToW, for some reason, therefore no Vickers (although classified as "medium" by UK).
The Bren has an incorrect straight magazine; it should be curved.
And the Boys AT rifle is still showing up as an American weapon.
-
Whatever you do, do it quickly then move back to WW2. No need for fiction there
-
Definately infantry entering buildings.
I still think the omission of this feature is rather odd, given the ability to damage and destroy buildings. Why would you want to bother, if there is nothing inside, apart from the "cool" factor? If this game is going to grow (or should I say grow-up?) this feature will be an essential component IMO.
Now that combat ranges have been increased (to realistic levels?), on-board mortars should have a look in. Very much a feature at this level of combat; more so than large offboard arty.
Again, given the very small scale of these battles, foxholes and their like would be far more common than large scale entrenchments. And if you can have foxholes you can presumably have shell holes, hopefully caused by arty strikes in game.
Some modicom of C&C would be nice
It was and is, after all, the single most important factor in a battle and is the most ignored in pretty much every tactical-level game. So much for realism; mustn't get in the way of fun too much
-
From "Panzerkampfwagen" by Ellis & Doyle Argus 1976:
Min. Turning circles
Pzkw I A&B: 2.1m
" II F : 4.8m
" III M : 5.85m
" IV D&G: 5.92m
" 38t: 4.54m
" 35t: 4.88m
Panther G : 10.0m
Tiger B : 4.8m
Hughes & Mann "The Panther Tank" Weapons Of War 2000 agree on 10m for the Panther G and give:
T34-76A : 3.8m
Sherman M4 : 9.5m
Cromwell MkV : in place
However in the same series, Ford in "The Sherman Tank" gives:
Panther G : 4.35m
There is not a lot of info. on this generally available and I have seen nothing relating to how fast these turns could be carried out - something I always thought was a bit on the slow side, in many cases, in CM
-
Listed as a US weapon in the Russian website and quite clearly seen in one of the screenshots being carried by US infantry, accompanying a Sherman!
Not American and not used much after '41. Cerainly not in '44
-
If these have previously been covered I apologise.
Does ToW include on-board, indirect fire, particularly mortars?
Do all forces have to be purchased or can a scenario specify exactly what the player has?
Has the engagement-range issue been answered yet?
-
I'm with Kip on this one.
Matt's excellent example of a gun crew member single-handedly manning a KV1 sounds brilliant but I would hope that such instances should be very restricted. Nice to see sometimes but not often
For the most part I would hope to see only displaced tank crew re-man tanks and gun crews re-man guns. Even then, only on an occaisional basis.
-
Moon,thanks for the lightning response.....not quite what I wanted to hear but what I expected.
-
Do these elements figure in ToW to any extent?
Or can all units be ordered pretty much instantly without regard to them?
-
Congratulations indeed. This is, without a doubt, a high profile game with a potentially mass-market appeal. A real feather in the cap for BFC to publish it.
RTS really isn't my thing, I don't think my mindset is equipped to cope with it, but I'll follow ToW's development with interest and, who knows, perhaps I'll be a convert in time.
-
We're not girls! We are LADIES (shades of Little Britain)
Er, well, some of us are... not me...obviously :eek:
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
[QB] Just breathe slowly and relax Jim.
I thought it was you who was supposed to do that
And The Italians are waiting. Very rude to keep Italians waiting as I'm sure your very elegant Italian wife would tell you
-
Does a WW2 version of the T-72 simulator qualify for:
“BIG, I mean unbelievable freaking huge news”
I really don't think so. Interesting, maybe. Exciting for those who like simulators, probably.
But not “BIG, I mean unbelievable freaking huge news”
Perhaps the unfolding puzzle picture is a banner for "CMX2 WW2" which will, as the modules are produced, include both East and West fronts.
The predominant Sherman, if such it is, may point to the first game being ETO?
This would more closely accord with Moons' recent reply to Michael Dorosh on another related thread, wherein he said that the new game would tread middle ground between the scope of CMBO/CMBB and the intense detail suggested by Michael.
Or not.
For the sake of sanity, BFC, hurry up and spill!
-
Besides the known games, we also have a couple more surprises up our sleeves! Both are games which have not yet been announced, and at least one of these will be BIG news. And if I say BIG, I mean unbelievable freaking huge news. If all goes well, we’ll spill the beans already this month. Only so much: it’s WW2.
I'm a bit surprised that the above statement from Moon hasn't raised a few more comments than it has.
Speculation is, of course, fairly pointless but fun nontheless.
So, what might it be?
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.
Since we've been promised a WW2 CMX module already, then tactical level seems unlikely.
So maybe we could be looking operational. But this might conflict with CMC, so perhaps not.
Grand tactical; companies and platoons? Now that would be very nice, especially if WEGO. Not much out there at that scale. Throw in some command orientation and it would have my very serious attention!
I suppose the WW2 crowd will just have to wait with baited breadth.
-
I'm glad it will only take a "little bit". I dread to think how long it would take for a "big bit"Originally posted by Moon:Yes, good idea and definitely possible, but it will take a little bit to write up something...
Martin
Combat Mission: Gold
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I would buy this - if it ever saw the light of day!
CM is a wasteland for me now.
CMBB and CMAK won't run on my Vista/nVidia8800 rig and CMSF (bought only out of loyalty to BFC - no interest in the subject at all) doesn't run well and is, frankly a disappointment and doesn't, for me, bode well for a WW2 iteration.
The whole CM experience is, sadly, starting to slip away.