Capt. Toleran
-
Posts
444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Capt. Toleran
-
-
Steve,
I'm actually pretty confident that what you guys have planned will be perfect in terms of accomodating mods and developers, if it's anything like the previous releases. To me, that's the strength of the product in terms of replayability -- allowing scenario developers to create new content without having to do too many work arounds. Here I am, years later, still coming back to CMBB and CMAK because of outside development.
For instance, I am always happy when a scenario designer makes a CMBO-theater scenario in CMAK. The units are there, the terrain is available, and something that the product wasn't necessarily focused on can be created anyway. It would be nice to have some of the Gulf War II battles recreated in CMSF by outside designers, and I'm expecting that if CMSF is somewhat flexible, this will be possible. Also, as other have mentioned, it might be fun to do some anti-Chechen ops as well, which doesn't seem that far from reality if the terrain and equipment are available. Only the names change (and we need snow and forests).
On that same note, I hope you don't waste too much development time on doing a storyline for the default campaign, as (as I stated in the other thread), I don't see that as your forte. Your previous games have had WWII history to provide the "story." What makes the CM games so great is not the story, it's the tools, in a realistic setting, with a realistic combat environment. It's the difference between playing soccer with a rag ball on a dirt lot, and playing it on a lush green regulation field with a pro ball and nice uniforms. Both are fun, but the latter is preferable. We'll provide the teams.
-
Yes, Halflife and Halflife 2, solely for Counterstrike and Day of Defeat. I care very little for the Halflife single player games, but the CS and DoD experience makes it worth it. I even bough the gold Halflife 2 package so that I would have access to their entire back library in case I wanted to play more mods. This also applied to Battlefield 1942, which I bought because of the extensive mod community (Desert Combat, Vietnam mod, etc.)
IMHO, this is the wave of the gaming future. Mods are usually created for free by dedicated hobbyists, people so obsessed with a particular topic (in a good way) that they will create reams of content based on that interest. A winning strategy is to generate a fairly open playing platform for gamers, and to let the hobbyists do the rest.
-
Personally, I would like whatever option allows scenario developers (and I'm not one) the greatest flexibility to generate content with maximum equipment choices. As the game industry has shown, there is an ocean of free fan content that just needs to be tapped with the right toolset. I am getting newfound enjoyment out of CMBB and CMAK years after purchase due to the folks down at the Proving Grounds -- they make em, I have fun testing them.
I see your role as the one who enables the playing field, and provides some demo "teams" for us to then reshape. I don't see you in the story-telling role, as that is not your company's forte, nor something I think development time should be spent excessively on, since plenty of armchair historians will fill in the story for free. Something that allows for great flexibility in renaming troop types, names, and TOEs with a range of equipment would give me the best buy for my dollar IMHO.
This all points in the "fictional scenario with easily relabeled core elements" direction.
-
Thought I'd chip in again as the original poster of the thread. After reading the CMSF game descriptions on Blogfront posted recently, reading all of Steve's posts on the forum, I restate my assertion that the CMx1 engine is going to feel very dated and barebones after playing CMSF.
And to all you CMSF haters -- I find it hard to belive that after 6 years of asking for various features, you would pass on the chance to play the CM2 engine because Battlefront isn't rehasing WWII once again like every game publisher has done since Battlefront lead the pack back in 2000/2001. There are so many wonderful things about modern weaponry and support to simulate, I think CMSF will really be great when it comes, and it feels like it is coming soon, a lot sooner than CMC.
-
Sounds like those same TC's beg to differ, it reminds them how easy it is to get sniped over there. You can learn a lot about setups by seeing the enemy actually teach you how he did it. I'm kinda surprised at your flip remark. I hate the jihadis and the insurgents, but don't turn down a chance for intelligence.
-
Just like to point out that the jihadi videos have plenty of scenes with a M1 or Bradley TC getting plugged, so that part of the article wasn't BS. See Ogrish's archives for details.
There's also one on Ogrish that has a Stryker getting wasted by an IED that was posted recently, but I wasn't sure about the rules about posting that stuff here, so I'm just letting you know.
I read somewhere recently that Ogrish is a big favorite with US troops that are deployed, because they can see the jihadi tactics and know what to watch out for. Anyone planning to play this game should probably watch some of those videos to appreciate the dangers that will be simulated in this game.
-
Steve,
You mentioned that forces would be able to arm themselves from APC's, trucks, and other such vehicles.
Any chance that weapons from downed enemy can also be taken custody of and used? I'm thinking of a RPG gunner that just got wasted, but his weapon is still intact.
I know in a firefight soldiers are sometimes reluctant to use an enemy weapon for fear of drawing friendly fire, but I have also read accounts where captured RPG's were used on the spot in an attempt to apply maximum firepower to the moment, or to breach a wall with some cheap enemy ammo when our own more expensive rounds were not available at the moment.
-
This acquiring concept is intriguing. Can the relative forces acquire the other teams weapons? Meaning, if a squad comes upon a RPG gunner they just wasted, and his weapon is still operational, can they turn it around and fire back?
Also, just would like to express my appreciation for all of the feedback info from Steve these past few weeks, I am getting really excited about the game.
-
Well, it's nice to hear that my sentiment is shared by some on this board. Also good to hear from Moon that things might pick up, though I still fear not in time for that CMx1 engine to look really creaky in comparison to CMSF. I was originally considering CMC as sort of interrim entertainment while waiting for CMSF, but it looks like now it will come out after, which kinda dims its prospects for me, though I respect that others are waiting for this explicitly.
Managing expectations seems to be a persistent issue on these boards, possibly because Battlefront is making so many more games these days than in the beginning of this decade. While it is nice to hear about a product on the horizon, it becomes increasingly frustrating if that idea doesn't materialize very quickly after that, and we get no feedback on progress. This was the case until very recently with CMSF, and I was one of the main complainers.
Now that Steve is posting on several threads a day, I think many of us are satisfied. Maybe it isn't good to build up expectations too soon until like the preceding 6 months before the demo, just my 2 cents.
-
Anyone else think this is vaporware? Seems like little news, little action on the forum, few threads, etc. Also, once CMSF comes out, that CMx1 engine is going to look a lot worse than it already does. IMHO, it would be better to aim for some sort of integration with a future release than to cling to the old engine. I would have bought this game now, not so sure about Q1 2007 or later.
-
Will there be Bradley fighting vehicles in the game? They used to fire Tows, what do they fire now? I remember a Bradley unleashing a missle on a house in one of the videos of Fallujah fighting (and in quite close proximity too).
-
Did a search, can't find it. Anybody?
-
Speaking of LOSAT, is it in the game, or is it just in the planning stages of devolpment right now? I just looked it up, at 5000ft/s it would be a pretty interesting weapon to watch at work.
EDIT: Just looked it up, saw it was cancelled, a shame. There is mention of CKEM, some planned successor.
-
mav1, try it in a FPS simulation and see how easy it is. Call of Duty 1 had a few situations like that, it can be very difficult if the bunker is manned by competent men to hit a tiny window with a fairly heavy metal "rock" and not have it bouce back at you. Anything that doesn't make it in the window is going to surpress you, not them.
-
Very happy (see, I'm not all complaints!) to hear body armor will be modeled in the game. Anecdotally, the book "No True Glory" about the battles for Fallujah cites a couple of examples of body armor saving the lives of many U.S. soldiers and a few insurgents who somehow got their hands on some armor.
-
Chiming in -- I'm also pro-shockwave, loved it in CMBO.
-
Um, still don't see it.... I click on the mirror link, I get a directory error message. See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I work for an online company, we QA stuff before we push it live, and we tend to make sure the films and programs we promote have trailers that can actually be accessed from our own servers, as well as 3rd party.
Here it is, an hour later, and I am no closer to viewing what it is you would like me to buy (and I probably will). I'm a fairly technically proficient person (my job is half IT), and I could not resolve the errors from that 3rd party site (and I watch online video constantly, more than TV). Can you send a direct link? When I send e-mails to people at work, I don't let them stumble around the network to find the file, I send them a url so they can not waste their time.
Also, just FYI on the "When It's Done" thing -- how done are you? Seems like a simple question, with a simple answer, "half, 3/4", etc. Just as you ask for our consideration and patience to let you produce a quality product, many of us have financial concerns we have to weigh on our side, and accompanying planning. If we only have enough discretionary spending in our household budget for one game per financial quarter, it would be good to know whether we should pencil in CMC for Q3 2006, or go ahead and spend elsewhere in the meanwhile. This way you don't lose a sale and goodwill, and you manage expectations.
EDIT - One final note about the 3rd party game sites -- My impression was that Battlefront was about not doing the normal game industry thing, which those sites are the complete representation of. Hype, Ads, junk reviews, and forced registrations so that we can get spammed. I don't trust those sites to give me good info or reviews on anything, especially not games in Battlefront's caliber -- Why would I want to pick up anything Battlefront-related there?
[ July 29, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Here we go again. Once again the burden is on us, the fans, to jump through flaming hoops on some crappy site that doesn't work in an attempt to get a look at the game we are expected to buy. This seems really unprofessional, and ill-timed if in fact they need one person (who isn't available) to post a file for us. Once again, half-assed marketing in action (just like the almost complete lack of feedback info on SF and CMC due dates in recent months) leads to customer frustration.
What does it take for us to get semi-accurate due dates on your products, get patches and game films directly from Battlefront (as oppossed to some 3rd-party host who makes us look at 10 ad impressions and click 5 times before we get what we want) and get information on the products we are expected to buy? And, considering the number of complaints about the current hosts of the gamefilms, no one at Battlefront has even re-hosted it someplace else.
Can someone just post the frickin thing on youtube? This 3rd party hosting crap on some game site is so 2002. I'm really hoping that once Battlefront's download platform comes out, that patches and trailers can be autostreamed from it. Though it has its problems, Steam is pretty nice in terms of convenience overall (esp. if you have a hard drive crash on you).
[ July 29, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
I've been reading "No True Glory" recently, and from the size scale the battles they had against even "mere insurgents," RPGs figure prominently in a minute by minute firefight. Assuming Syria would pull the same arms buildup cache stuff that Iraq did, even the informal militia and insurgent troops should be able to send a steady stream of RPG rounds back at NATO forces. The fighting in Anbar in 2004, if the book is correct, featured battalion-sized engagements in Ramadi, Fallujah, and the outlying suburbs, with insurgents who all had access to mortars, LMGs, HMGs, and RPGs, in a constant cycle of resupply (guys in taxis and cars bringing more weapons and ammo to the front, and hidden caches).
Can we expect this to be accurately reflected in CMSF?
-
Just like to note -- In a briefing about the attempted rescue recently of the two U.S. soldiers that were kidnapped (and later executed), the general noted that the forces involved in the mission ran into 30 IEDs, 12 of which went off. This speaks to the importance of IED modelling, and for the flexibility in implementation (for instance, command-detonation instead of treating it as a simple mine). Truly these are a viable defensive mechanism for anyone playing insurgent forces in the upcoming game.
-
Well, for one thing, IED's are pretty non-uniform in composition, so I'm hoping they'll have small ones, medium-sized ones, large ones, etc., with a chance of failure modeled as well. Some might be better as fragmentary (and thus anti-personnel), while others might be better used on hardened vehicles. It would also be great if we could set off chains of IED's, like we've seen in some of the hotspots in Iraq. IED's can also be mounted different ways -- some under the road, some up around crotch or neck level, etc. (some in dead dogs). All of these factors make an IED a bit different than a mine.
-
Well, considering so much else he did was cowardly, I don't think West had a bad bit of imagery there (unless you consider sawing off the head of unarmed and bound captives a brave act). From the videos I've seen, even the bravest get pretty panicky in those last seconds of life. And btw, the guy was a demon (mass slaughter of civilians, seeking to stimulate religious war by killing Shiites by the thousands and demolishing prized religious shrines), so I don't think it's too much to demonize him. There's a big difference between attacking invading soldiers (not that I am for that, I am on the US side) and slaughtering civilians wholesale to preserve Sunni supremacy in Iraq.
-
Ah, thanks! I did "IED", but aparently that was not a good choice of wording
-
I tried doing a search, but nothing really leapt out at me -- Will IED's be modeled in the game? This seems to be the main weapon insurgents use, and from what I can tell, they are lumped in with normal combat ops (as part of an ambush, fallback defense in Fallujah, etc.). I imagine them being placed like minefields. To me, this seems like one of the main weapons in the insurgent arsenal (I'm assuming we'll have "root out the insurgent" missions, a la Fallujah).
Immobilisation - can BFC be moved on the Issue?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
My 2 cents -- Please keep the bogging. As much as it sucks to have a tank bog where you can't use it, that is reality, and us CM fans love reality above all else. There are plenty of games that sacrifice reality for fun, and that's their perogative. I play CM because it is fun, but for me, it is fun because it is real, and that extra challenge is what makes winning so rewarding. You wouldn't have a hurdle race without hurdles (or ones that were 2 inches off the ground), right?