Capt. Toleran

Hey now Billy, you must be new, I post vids all the time here. I used to post them sans disclaimer, but someone else posted some links that were controversial, and got the thread locked, so from here on, I'm going to warn on language, because I like my threads in a nice un-locked state. Also, considering we are playing a war game, I'm not so worried about violence. I don't make the rules, I just abide by them.

You're preaching to the choir, buddy -- I also feel that here in the US, there is an awful double standard regarding violence versus nudity/bad language. I think nudity is fine, and should not be lumped in the same category as the other two. Unfortunately, we are in the minority, and while that clip doesn't really show any graphic violence (even the explosion is blurry), the language is pretty clear, and I've seen people here complain before.

I've been playing since CMBO, and I'm really looking forward to seeing all the changes we talked about finally implemented in a new engine (1:1 included as mentioned above), plus modern combat! Plus, the modern combat is topical (similar to environments we've seen in recent wars/battles) and lets us play with all our favorite equipment.

Been a while since I've posted a combat vid. British forces using Javelin in Iraq *******HARSH LANGUAGE WARNING - DO NOT CLICK IF EASILY OFFENDED****** http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=815_1185121805 Nuff said about the language, people say some intense things under stress or anger (though that was an especially colorful few sentences for such a short clip). Anyways, interesting to note that this shot was a longer one than I recall from other vids, maybe the target was a lot further away or the missile had to arc higher? Not sure if they can do that.

I will never pay for extra scenarios. IMHO, part of the joy of this game and this community is the nonprofit-oriented mods and scenarios that make the initial investment in the game itself all the more worth it. By the way, let me second the recommendation that people visit the scenario depot at the Proving Grounds to find new missions and even submit their own. http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/ Formerly I was strictly multiplayer, but about 2 years ago I started playing singleplayer only (at the time, I had kinda burned on all the CMxx variations after 7 years, but still wanted my fix once in a while), and I was pleasantly surprised not just by the quality but the range in challenges and situations people could come up with. If anything, the scenario editor looks pretty easy to use (based on the preview), at least in terms of what I thought was challenging. I think I may even submit a few to the proving grounds myself.

Eggshells with hammers....

I think it's just that we don't know what to expect. The changes in tactics were extreme in some ways from CMBO to CMBB, we just don't know what to expect from human opponents yet in this unknown scenario.

Used to take out a high-priority target recently: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003605.html

Oh, and some parts of his review seem just wrong -- Like the part about there not being deformable terrain, just a "scorched circle?" If he got that wrong, what else did he miss? Kinda makes me wonder if this is like the book reviewer who just reads the first chapter EDIT -- LOL, he even says there is a random battle generator!!!! Did anyone else even read this whole thing? Maybe he just stole his info from Wikipedia or something. Credibility lost!

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that this guy is self-admittedly not a mil-gamer, at least not to the level we expect. CMxanything is going to be a complex beast for someone without that interest to drive their participation in the game, and they likely won't appreciate (or even want) the kind of complexity we demand. I know, because I've tried to get perfectly intelligent and game-oriented people into our little hobby here, but to no avail. Not one permanent (or even semi-permanent) convert out of 8, and I'm not too bad at selling ideas It's like your salesperson talking to your IT guy or gal about what they like to do on the computer. There's a world of difference in tastes. For most

Ok, so I think we've seen enough of this question from the new board members, but as a long-term member, let me skew that same old "What specs do I need question" on its head. If I had unlimited time and money, what is the best technology specifically for CMSF? We all know different video cards are optimized for different Direct-X technologies, and it sounds like having too new of a PC (read multiple cores or Vista) also gets in the way. It is sounding like there is an optimum mixture of the old and new -- what is it? Before we were hearing bad things about ATI, now all I see are bad things about NVIDIA (cringe). What's the deal with that? So, basically, out of all of the testers, who was most able to turn their rig up all the way with the bells and whistles, and what were their specs? And no, I've been here about 8 years, I'm not going to do a search, I earned it

Yeah, that one sniper vid (recently posted on this forum) with the Blackwater sniper taking out all those guys offscreen didn't seem entirely defensive, especially since he was taking out Mahdi army guys at distances far beyond the perimeter of whatever facility he would have been guarding. Seemed pretty pre-emptive to me, like he was just an extension of our military force in the area.

Honestly, I think the main problem with the TOW situation (and many others here) was lack of communication, and a promise that downloads would be available early. Once problems hit, no one knew, and when you don't know, some people assume the worst. Kinda like now with this thread.

Haha, well, I'm sure plenty of us would have loved to volunteer to help, all you need to do is ask... Seriously, though I understand that many QA functions require long and repetitive testing with log-taking, certain issues (like graphics) could be tested with a non-functional engine as a download for comparison on multiple systems. It also would have given us eye candy to drool over. Maybe something to think about for future games.

Awesome post, Other Means. This totally belongs here, you've got Strykers, combat, even a suspected enemy agent being shot (though it sounds like it plausibly just could have been the local cabbie soliciting work, so that was sad) -- if anything, this is much better quality than the raw footage I usually post up here. Keep up the good work [ July 15, 2007, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

Getting kinda tired of this question -- maybe it needs to be a sticky. This is more like the 200th time this question has been asked.

RAM was the sticking point for me on TOW -- once I went from 1 to 2 GB (apparently something long overdue), the change was immediate and dramatic. I hope I'm in the clear for CMSF, it sounds like the engine is less of a system hit than TOW.

Speaking of the newsletter/RSS feed -- seems like it's been a couple of weeks now (well, at least 2 Mondays ago) since there have been any updates.... Aren't there any last-minute bones?

Madmatt, your story makes me think you guys should have more get-togethers -- at one good idea per meeting, it's a bargain! Most meetings don't come near that quota

Just my speculation here -- You also gotta figure that we are the premium users Battlefront is marketing to, and are pretty much guaranteed (due to loyalty and enthusiasm for the product, subject matter, etc.) to buy the game, having supported it during development this whole time and being military history afficionados (I assume most of us here are, or at least mil equipment fans). Now take Joe Schmoe who never read a military history book in his life, doesn't really know that much about guns, and just suddenly got a craving to play a game that looked like the video he saw on youtube last night. He's not going to pay the premium price, you're lucky to get him at the discount. At this point, Battlefront will probably have already gotten their sales out of the premium customers (us), so Joe Schmoe represents revenue maximization, getting every little bit of residual (yet ever less profitable) income from the somewhat small PC gaming base. I have no problem with this, I am very thrilled that these kinds of deals spread our hobby through viral marketing, and enable us to get multiple CMx2 (a gaming paradise in the next year!) modules in 2007/08/09. Yay Battlefront! Btw, if anyone has a flux capacitor-enabled Delorian, I'll pay you 3 times the price now for the game

Mikoyan, excellent post, I actually bookmarked it.

Yes, I'm thinking maybe some govt training budgets might help cover that $2MM cost. Military academy licensing, foreign govts. (a la Tac Ops and Canada), they must have something figured out, as yes, 100k users does seem pretty high for such a niche title. Also, maybe a big chunk of that 2 mil covers future titles, since multiple titles can now be developed on the CMx2 platform.

Yeah DAS, not cool, have some respect. A lot of us here appreciate military theory. If you don't care for it, maybe this isn't the game for you.

Anything with that much engineering for a specific purpose is sexy. Too bad we keep building bigger and tougher targets for them to use their IEDs on -- cleary we are trying to "tech" our way out of the war, rather than working with the neighborhoods or leaving if we are not wanted. It's the military-industrial complex at work -- the military buys more toys that will supposedly fix the problem, our soldiers and govt. pay the price while the contractors get rich. Oops, maybe that's a tiny bit too political for this morning or this forum. Carry on! (BTW, I was an original supporter of the war, but not this morass. We should leave, Al Queda is in Pakistan, not Iraq, and Hussein is dead).

I'm thinking Syrian will be easier. Less sensitive to casualties, often on the defense, terror weapons in the arsenal, surprise all around. It's a hard road for the U.S. player.