Gpig

Mine goes "Gert-and-Bort." 49th recce was my first PBEM. Ahhh, memories. Great battle Andreas. Thanks! Gpig

Yay!!! Gpig

Jolly good laugh followed by confusion at own admiration of poster's depth of character.

amazing drawing, self-depreciatingly referred to as a "doodle," showing original poster in a "peeved" state.

sycophantic BFC apologist post #1 (Countdown says 22min!)

Seems to me this is exactly WHY they try not to raise hopes ("it will arrive when it arrives"). Look what happens when a "hope" falls through the crack. They get accused of irresponsible behaviour. Deceitful conduct and worse. I was hoping to see the website as well, but Steve has explained things. I am also happily equipped with patience. (Wish I could SELL this stuff . . .) Come on, give 'em some space and some respect. I'm assuming you've all been playing the hell out of their past products and having a grand old time. Is this the way to treat 'em after the "goods" they've delivered? *wags finger* Gpig (And if they still didn't have at least this forum dedicated to CMSF, my guess is you'd be wondering why the hell not. Correct?)

Also. just WHO was manning all the guns on Lulu during the final battle. Everyone was out in the trenches, it seemed. I guess they found a whole EXTRA crew somewhere in the ruins of that well, I guess. I built a CMAK scenario depicting this final battle. It's not that interesting, actually. (At least, MY version was not that interesting.) The MG's really keep the germans down. Especially as they are weakened and tired (etc.). The single German 50mm mortar can make things interesting. Especially if it happens to take out the lone Vickers (or pin him at an important moment). Still, kind of fun. Gpig

10 paces each, turn and fire. Gpig

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4603136.stm More fuel on the fire . . . ba-FWOOOOM!!! This whole inter-species rivalry/competition/bickering that goes on between the U.S. and the U.K. has long legs. I read Eisenhower's autobiography and he described on MANY occasions how frustrated he was with the strains brought on by this kind of thing. More so at the beginning of the U.S. involvement than towards the end of W.W.II. Sort of like a married couple fighting about which exit to take off the freeway . . . Gpig [ January 11, 2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

Sneak peak screenie!!! Gpig

Good stuff. I do not think there is an option to your point number 5. When designing a scenario, you place the reinforcement marker, chosse which forces will arrive and presto. The scenario brings 'em in in total disorder. As for point 7, i've played some VERY exciting combination exit/straight forward fight battles. They CAN be great fun, but there is a secret ingredient needed for them to work. The secret is that only PART of your force should be required to exit for points. The other part should be allowed to stay and fight/hold ground/secure objectives. Gpig

Ooooh, excellent question. (how's that for furthering the discussion?) Gpig

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151 Ok. This link doesn't show you any CAS. But it does take you to a video of plenty of full auto firing. It's the low-tech version of the CAS video. More like CGS. CloseGroundSupport. And can anyone tell me what that short-barreled MG is that the little girl is shooting? Crazy

Massively Tempting Left Buttock

Tragic. Fascinating document. What does MTLB stand for again? Thanks, Gpig

Looks great! Nice work. Can't wait to give it a whirl. Gpig

It looked pretty good. I enjoyed it. (Missed the Brecourt Manor one.) The recon by death part was indeed unsettling. Can you imagine being picked for that duty? Ick. Gpig

Heh heh, yeah. It's total chopper porn. Turn down the volume. There's some pretty amazing footage in there. Trying to take out that Big Mortar with the MG. Blowing up tank after tank after AFV after truck and building. All the vehicles were stationary. Hatches open (that I could tell). Seemed they were out of action PRIOR to being blown to smithereens. Gpig

Hi Michael Doh. Wainwright. Hope'd I'd never see that place again. Those are pretty nice lookin' turrets on the LAV's. Is that a 25mm chain gun? (Bushmaster?) The LAV's we had in our hanger, back in Edmonton ('87-90) had a turret with more girth. Grizzly's I think they were called. Do you know what size armarment the main gun was on those (76mm)? And are they still used in the CAF? Thanks, Gpig

I watched parts of that BBC/Italian thingy last night. They were interviewing a former U.S. serviceman (Recon/Scout?) who said he was there in falluja. But the documentary/news piece specifically mentioned WP's "cloud" like method of delivery. They mentioned how flesh would be melted or "burned off down to the bone." And that clothing was not touched. In other words, they found corpses where the flesh was melted but the clothing was not burned. It all sounded a little "cooked-up" to me. Pardon the pun. Someone is trying to obscure the facts. Probably BOTH sides on the issue. Gpig

*voice emenating from ass* WTF = "why that face?" CIWS = Close In Weapons System(?) CITV = Candidly Inappropriate TeleVision

So Steve, are these SBCT's kind of like the Brit "JOCK COLUMN" of CMAK fame? (ACs, Troop transport, Towed Guns and light tanks.) Cool. Anyone else ready to go "swanning about" in the desert? Gpig

I think he's saying that on the range, they'd be EASY to hit. (To big.) But on HIS range, the dummies are the size of G.I. Joe dolls (or somefink.) Only easy for Fins to hit. Gpig

Hi Kip. This was posted by steve yesterday (?) in this forum (somewhere). Well, I've actually been quite clear and specific about what is a Title and what is a Module, but for those that missed it... A Title is a major shift in subject matter. The degree of shift depends on the conflict. WWII ETO would basically be broken up into Fronts. Meaning, one Title for Western Europe 1944-1945, one Title for Italy, another for France and the Low Countries in 1940, and yet another for something like the Balkans and Greece 1941-1945. The Eastern Front would likely be a single Title as well. However, the subject matter covered by the Title itself would be fairly narrow for any of these fronts. For example, the Eastern Front Title might only contain combat centering in one particular area for a particular region and slice of time (say Kursk or Stalingrad or AG Center in Bagration, etc.) between German and Soviet forces. The Western Europe 1944-1945 title might just be US forces in Normandy June-August 1944. Etc. The reasoning is that terrain, weather, TO&E, models, textures, and the mechanics of warfare (C&C, weapons technology, etc) need to be logically grouped if we are to avoid being bogged down like we were with CMx1 development. Concentrate on one fairly specific topic, simulate it very well, then release it. Depth vs. Breadth. That's our new concept. For Breadth we have Modules. These allow us to expand upon the setting already established in the Title. For example, doing up the battle of Arnhem as a Module for the WWII Western Europe Title or the battles of Army Group South in the 1941 offensive for the the Eastern Front Title. That sort of thing. Modules will not deviate significantly from the timeframe and theater of the main Title. To do so would mean having to redo the aspects that give the game Depth, and that means investing as much time as it would be to create a Title. And that means it isn't a Module any more but instead a Title. What that means is that there will be no 1973 conflict Module for CM:SF. The only thing similar between that setting and CM:SF is some of the Soviet hardware and the terrain. Otherwise, everything else is different. Absolutely not Module material. It is unlikely we will ever do it as a Title either since we have many other things that are on our list that would appeal to the greater wargaming audience and to ourselves as well. So what kinds of Modules would be applicable to CM:SF? Adding NATO forces and the US Marines to the same exact setting is what we're planning on doing. Which ones and who goes first? We've yet to decide. The NATO forces will not be done all in one Module, that is for sure. What we probably will do is release them grouped by equipment. For example, the Dutch and Danes use a mix of US and German equipment for the most part. If we added the Bundeswehr we could get the Danes and Dutch in with little difficulty since most of their needs would already be met (US stuff in the Title release, German stuff along with the Bundeswehr). But adding the Bundeswehr and the British in one Module is not likely since they both have totally different equipment. But again, it all comes down to how much work it would take for us to put this stuff in. Think of it this way... we are planning on a Module taking a couple of months of intensive work by at least 3-4 people. If we think we can put in x, y, and z in within those parameters, we will. If we think we can only handle x or a combo y and z, then we will choose which is likely to be the most popular and put out either x *or* y/z. Then for another Module we can do whatever we didn't do for the previous one. Hopefully this furthers everybody's understanding of what our new strategy is like! Steve

Awesome! Projectile rolly-eyes!