Capt. Toleran
-
Posts
444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Capt. Toleran
-
-
unsobill, agreed. For a game that should be out fairly soon, it's very weird not to have any gameplay vids other than trees swaying. Release date hopefully should be in 2-3 months max(?) when compared to some of the statements (3 months ago, the estimate from Steve on December 5, 2006, was that it "had better not be 6 months" ( http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001146#000003 )
...so that makes us less than 3 months away, unless things have gone wrong and problems have crafted up.
It alarms me to hear that artwork is still being fleshed out for major vehicles like the Bradley, I hope that the gameplay issues have been settled then.
Let's get a game vid of the vehicles and shooting that is in there, I want to see a building reduced to rubble via a air strike or something.
-
For some reason the milgamer niche seems to be filled with folks that consider upgrading their PC once every 4 years "frequent". I think something about our hobby seems to attract a rather frugal and fiscally conservative personality type, because were PC gamers from other aspects of the hobby to read what was posted above, they would convulse with laughter.
I myself go through about a PC a year, maybe a year and a half to two years. I spend about 200 bucks on a good vid card, and that usually holds me for about a year. I'm not one of those guys who goes and drops 5k on a new system -- I spend about 1.1k tops, including the vid card, and this is for a system with DVD burner, separate CD drive, nice size HD, etc.
This is a niche hobby, and games like this (Battlefront games) only come out every few years. If these games are really important to you, make the investment to properly enjoy it. Budget for the year, and stick with that budget, including new equipment. Trying to get an older rig to run brand-new games, especially those that are your core hobby, is just an exercise in frustration.
Just my 2 cents, no offense meant.
EDIT -- I'd also like to point out that the PC gaming industry has contracted in recent years due to relative lack of demand. Essentially, we are luxury gamers, in that we spend much more than console gamers on our hobby per year, excluding title cost (just equipment). The fact is that military games really aren't suited for consoles, so if you are a military gamer, resign yourself that you are forced into this luxury hobby, and spend smart, but don't scrimp, you will just trade time and frustration in increased waiting time and crashed games. You get what you pay for (but never pay more than 1200 bucks for a complete system, it's just a waste of money to crank out that extra 5%).
-
Ruddy, I like your suggestion RE: morale boost, a very good idea.
I think the cheer can be inoffensive, considering the game is kind of a celebration (or a trivialization) of violence in the first place. Also, other games (which deal with the topic in a serious manner), such as the Total War series, have already broken the cheer barrier (your troops celebrate your win in Rome Total War and Medieval Total War 2), so I don't think Battlefront would be breaking any taboos.
-
Beautiful, man, beautiful.
When can we play it?!!!!
-
Let's keep this thread going, we've yet to get a response from the Battlefront folks.
-
My impression is that US troops (and Arabs with their Allahu Akbar equivalent) do it for a morale boost. You cheer, the guys in the position next to you cheer, everyone gets a collective boost to their morale, and hears that others in the area are still there.
There's nothing new or particularly American about this -- I'm pretty sure everyone gives a good cheer when the enemy eats a few bombs (I've heard the Brits chuckling too in their vids, so they don't get a pass from this behavior). War whoops have been around since the beginning of war, even the lower primates do it in their scraps. If we're going to be real, let's be sure the actual stuff people say is in there, not some sanitized 1950s comic-book version. And I do expect the British module (when it comes out) to have cheering too.
Final note -- let's not forget this is a game that simulates war, which is PEOPLE KILLING EACHOTHER. It seems incongruous to wince at fairly innocuous words (I think racist phrases should be kept out, of course, but Allahu Akbar is cultural, as pointed out above, and a very common saying) while cheering on even better and more granular simulation of a tank getting roasted by a ATGM, which of course could end up with the grisly burning death of most of the crew. War is ugly, and though we are somewhat sheltered from that ugliness, a lot of us want this to be as real as possible in terms of the audio content of the game.
-
Mmm, true -- Maybe I mean something other than blank scenery, to clarify. Let's have some action!
-
Oh, and "Get some!", we need that in there too.
-
Even if it wasn't, it shouldn't be too hard to get a bunch of college-age guys to go "Woooo! YEAH!" a couple of different ways for sound sampling, and same for the "Allahu Akbar" -- heck, they could steal that from the insurgent vids, I'm sure they won't sue
-
His video request isn't too shabby though, and it seems high time that we had one. Not having any vids makes it seem like we are still 6 months away -- that can't be the case, can it?
-
Hi,
With regards to troop sounds and events that might serve to trigger certain sounds (much as in CMx1, seeing a tank triggers "Armor ahead" or an enemy popping up triggers "Hey lookit that" from your troops) -- Can we get the "Whooo!" sound byte in there for air strikes and support strikes?
Every close-support video I have seen from Iraq filmed from the US side has featured the soldiers giving out a football-style cheer every time a bomb lands on a structure or hotspot. This is ostensibly for morale, and the troops just expressing happiness and gratitude for the help. In the interest of realism, it would be nice if a strike (friendly) happening within LOS of friendly troops would trigger that reaction.
On the Syrian side, I think "Allahu Akbar" is the equivalent for them (at least per the Iraqi and Chechen vids I've seen), and also acceptable.
I mention this because sound is so important in games and movies as far as creating the immersive effect. CMx1 did such a great job with this, I think the above would also lend authenticity to CMx2, especially since there is so much footage confirming that that is what happens. I look forward to hearing some war whoops.
-
Steve, I'm with you -- the whole Israel conflict this past Summer showed that troops without armor support can go up against armor and inflict heavy losses with much cheaper weaponry.
What bothers me about the "Heavy conquers all" argument often mentioned in this thread is the assumption that the tanks will always have LOS to their weapon's max, instead of claustrophobic environments like urban areas or hills, where it is very easy for the enemy to pop up within range, let off a missle, and then dissolve back into the landscape. Considering Israel has some of the heaviest armored tanks in the world, their losses should serve as a warning that infantry are always needed to screen any armored force.
I could see that in the open, wide-view areas of desert, tanks would be premiere, but that is only a small fraction of the total landscape possibilities world-wide, and certainly not the only scenery in Syria.
BTW, a good example of this in "Arabs at War" (from the CMSF reading list) -- Libya's activities in Chad. They did well with Armor support helping GUNT early on, but later, the home forces, using nothing more than armored cars and ATGM's, were able to make devastating flank attacks on the Libyan force and inflict repeated defeats.
[ March 20, 2007, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
Video footage, this time of dismounted Stryker Brigade infantry doing sniping ops, includes m-82 footage (being fired, not the target).
http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=true&token=91e_1173797730&p=57253&s=1
-
Oh, and the 100 Strykers called to the scene pretty much justifies the screenshot that triggered this whole debate in the first place -- that's how it happens.
-
Well, not the article's fault that only the dog ate it -- So maybe you mean pretty pathetic excuse for an operation. The article did a good job of conveying detail at a level we can all appreciate. Better that the article didn't embellish any impact we might have had.
-
On second read, this actually comes out pro-Stryker -- 2 vehicles destroyed, but only one fatality. Not too shabby considering direct IED hits on both.
-
Before anyone reads the article below, let me state now that I am not anti-Stryker, nor is this article meant to weigh in on the argument (though my sympathies are more on the Steve side of things, pro-Stryker). Below is an account of Strykers in battle recently, with 2 Strykers lost:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Under-Fire.php
-
Great to hear, Fallujah-level stuff (and smaller) is fine by me. My main point is that this new module will give us all a lot of flexibility, and the weapons systems (the old Russian tanks) to play out a whole host of scenarios outside of the basic scope.
-
Just replying to my own thread again -- US/Iraq seems very doable, for both wars, I and II, and the ensuing counterinsurgency. Just because Battlefront isn't making it part of the Syrian campaign doesn't mean we can't fight the battles we want, on the maps we make, using approxiamate forces, which in this case would be the next best thing to Battlefront having actually done an Iraq module.
Just curious for the scenario folks here that plan to make some for CMSF -- Where do you plan to host? I hit the Proving Grounds a lot, since I feel like my efforts there not only entertain me, but also provide a minor service to the folks that need their stuff tested.
-
Glad to hear it, I also felt that conscript troops or any unconventional forces that might be included would work well for the insurgents. If you make those scenarios, I'll play them.
-
What makes scenarios fun for me (and I used to hate single player CM, and swear only by PBEM) is the historical research that goes into each one. In the case of the Iran/Iraq scenarios, it would be possible to simulate the low-quality human wave troops (the Basij) with Revolutionary Guard backing, versus Republican Guard and low-quality regular Army units. Gosh, if someone else doesn't do it, I might actually have to try my hand.
-
Hi all,
I'm very excited about the coming Syria vs. U.S. focus of this game, but it also occurred to me (and many others) that the game could also be used to simulate Iran vs. Iraq (especially exciting battles like the Battle of Khorramshahr, or a fraction of it) or counter-insurgency ops in Iraq, or the Battle of Fallujah, for instance.
Any of you scenario folks planning to do anything like I mention above?
-
Ah, perfect, thanks.
Just FYI, I'm getting a 400 error when I click on the link, and this page:
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/NewsRSSFeed/tabid/54/moduleid/39%0A5/RSS.aspx
-
BTW, just a suggestion -- For anything new on the site, can there be something published on the Blogfront RSS so that we'll all know right away?
Also, wondering if it would be possible to generate RSS feeds for the boards, and even on a member name basis, so that I'll get a ping every time Steve posts, for example. Dunno how hard this would be to set up, but I do a lot of RSS reader stuff, so it would be convenient.
Finally, the smoke and cannon firing graphics -- placeholders, or close approximations of how they will look in the final product?
Sound Events -- The post-airstrike War Whoop
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Whups, sorry Captain (blush)
My intent is not to argue (arguing never works anyways, look at the Too Many Strykers thread) but to make counterpoints while also keeping this thread at the top, since no one from Battlefront has commented yet. I certainly understand and acknowledge feelings of reverence for what our troops are going through, as well as repulsion for the needlessly violent and destructive sentiments behind some of those words that are said in battle.
That being said (and I'm doing this not to argue, but to keep the topic alive while we wait on an answer) this game looks like it strives to be the most realistic yet, even when compared to Theater of War. My hope is that the ambient sound and sound events will prove as good as we hope. I also hope that, as you mention, I should be able to mod in all the "Whoos" and "Allahu Akbar"'s I should want to my heart's content