thewood

Its even worse than I thought, you got ripped off AND yous an aussie. The next you tell me is you live in Canada. God help you.

I am a witness to said telling of joke. You may need to eliscence the joke to avoid future pirating.

You got ripped off, I paid $55 to say whatever I want.

There have been a bunch of games that tried to do modern tactical and failed (or had very little success). There have been some compnaies that tried 3D tactical company level wargaming (some have failed and at least one is heading that way. I don't play just because no one has done it better.

No, but really trying to

CMSF may have an RT mode, but this is RTS that reviewers rave about. This is why I don't think the RTS crowd will ever be enamored of CM-type games: http://games.internode.on.net/content.php?mode=reviews&id=131

Yeah, F4 was huge disappointment, based on the quality from previous releases. I think a similar theme runs through these forums.

I beg your pardon, but I was posting there. I think you should should reevaluate your position. (sarcasm and humor)

In reality, that is only true thinking inside the box, as marketing people say. SB has done well for itself selling to a niche, even before the military stepped in. They raised the price. That is what will have to happen for niche games like wargames to survive. I think I am actually paying less now than 10 years ago for some games. I would have gladly paid SBPro-like prices for continued extensions of CM, instead of watching BFC risk the mainstream trenches. I eventaully bought 3x each of the CM series. Wargames like CMSF are just too complicated for the bulge in the demographics. Unless you really dumb them down. I am worried CMSF has only pushed hex/turn wargamers further away, yet is too complicated (even in just the concepts) for the next generation. Many times the next generation just wants blow things up. [ August 17, 2007, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

That jogs a memory along the same lines. I'll have to go back and search. I remember that being a feature talked about too.

I believe that WEGO was a factor, the right concept at the right time. It drew in wargamers who dismissed RT and also brought in some people from less grog-like areas who dismissed turn-based. I still have to explain WEGO to people who think CM is the same type type of turn-based game as Steel Panthers. That goes to the marketing of the concept. I have been looking at some of the non-wargame forums and CMSF is getting beaten up for being too complicated and difficult to play. I think the setting and concepts are inherently difficult for non-wargamers, just like the nuances of Madden or other sport franchises. No matter what format BFC chose, very few RTS games ar going to come over and get hooked.

There is a thread on the Stryker firing differences between 1.01 1.02 in the Strategy forum.

It didn't have an unditching beam so it used 75mm shells for traction.

Just curious, how close are Marine SOPs for support to Army

You're welcome

OK, I just did a search and couldn't find it...what scenario manual?

That's where I stop reading his review. </font>

Actually, the somewhere in between comment seems to be the fairest comment for where I hoped CM2 was going. I kind of have the feeling its a baby/bath water thing. I feel guilty for still loving CM1. I may need to double up on therapy. 1/2 mother issues, 1/2 CM.

Wow, I just read the forums over there that followed the review. Holy Smokes!

I was in the bowels of china when this was written. I downloaded CMSF and started playing before I even saw this thread. I am glad I skipped it because I would have knee-jerked and skewered the reviewer for bashing my beloved CM. Now I see he has a lot of the same issues I have had with gameplay.

That would be "humor"...

Hey, nice sig

Thats OK leave me out...

And he has dirty towels (that will follow you)

I wonder how many people are actually playing online. I see few comments about it.