Guy w/gun
-
Posts
403 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Guy w/gun
-
-
I shall bump for a second time!!!
-
The fact that the Maj. had a clean uniform and train car was a big cinamatic hint. It was to show the differences between the rival snipers. One was a young, talented, farm boy. The other an upstanding German officer, talented but also expirienced with age. Almost aristocratic. As the political officer said, it all had to do with class struggle.
This is the essence of attempting to make a good story. I honestly don't think the writer cared if the Maj. appeared to be too clean. His character was made that way to support the story and underlying themes.
All this brings to mind Tom Clancy. While his books are top notch, I wouldn't consider him a great story teller. He may pay attention to detail when it comes to the implements of war, but his books are more serialized than the "Once upon a time-The End", definate beggining and end feel that stories have.
I think that the writers and directers were trying for more of a story approach than a war movie approach. I would probably enjoy it either way.
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-18-2001).]
-
Why do I get the feeling that you guys would scold your kids for painting pink and green horses "outside the lines" and having the "oversight" to portray people with 12 fingers?
-
Gee way to miss my point! Lets just say this. Ever heard of "artistic license"? I fully support it! Imagine a world with out it.
I'm not even going to comment on the remark of Picasso. Understand him or not, his early work was a major progression in art at the time. (And in no way am I saying that EATG is a milestone in cinema, but the analogy is still valid.)
-
Originally posted by Bimmer:
I just hate silly oversights (or worse, conscious decisions) that detract from what could otherwise be a decent movie.
Detract from a decent movie eh? And just what would be your idea of decent? A taste-the-dirt realistic portraying of Stalingrad?
1. If the answere is yes, then you my friend are in the minority. Hollywood is out to make a buck, even if it means taking license with history.
2. Did you even read my post? I guess you feel that Picasso's just an uneducated dumbass. He doesn't know a morter from a grenade, and if he did he would have painted a more accurate depiction of the Spanish civil war.
-
What I originally meant was that if scenarios are going to be created where historically the Russians used human wave attacks, what's going to stop me from NOT using my troops this way. What if I use them more like I use inf in CM? Taking advantage of the large numbers, but not just throwing them out to be mowed down.
Michael answered my question pretty well, if BTS does indeed implement these ideas, or atleast similar ones, when using masses of low grade Soviet infantry.
-
Originally posted by panzerpete:
the most significant thing I took away from watching this film is that Racheal Weisz (I think that is her name) is really, really hot -- even covered in mud and guts. I had major problems with the Hollywood-izing of this picture. It is just so sad that filmmakers beleive they have to spoon-feed history to movie-goers. Way too much emphasis on individuals when they should have spent more time with the battle itself, especially more from the german perspective. It ended up being just a typical good guy vs. bad guy type of movie when it could have been so much more. Saving Private Ryan is still far and away a better film in every respect. The most annoying part -- why use British actors?? Why didn't they get Russian actors that can speak English -- it would have been much more convincing.
Did you mean to completely ignore this entire thread or was it an accident. Most of the disscussion is about the lack of Russian accents and such. At first I was PO'd because you seemed to blatently fall into the catagory of someone who can't enjoy a movie past the history lesson, then I realized that you had completely ignored THE ENTIRE THREAD, not just my contribution.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARG!
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-18-2001).]
-
-
Ok, maybe I missed something, but everyone upgrades every game they own with the latest patches, right? It always seemed that if you didn't, you were technically playing an unfinished version of the game.
-
How will that be my only choice? What if I attempt use my masses of low grade poorly out fitted troops in a more tacticaly sound manner?
A very simplified example: Use only half in an all out rush as a diversion, the other half to flank while the Germans are busy cutting through the wave.
What's going to stop me from using the same tactics I do now in CM2 as the Russians? How are my Soviet troops going to differ from the large number of conscript troops that can be called upon in a CM battle? I don't use human waves with them.
-
If human wave attacks are going to be represented in Cm2 scenarios and operations, what factors will encourage there use if historical factors call for them?
In other words, what's going to stop me from using these hordes of infantry in a more intelligent manner? Why will I want to use them in a human wave fashion?
-
I said it once and I'll say it again, I'm glad the people on this forum don't make movies.
EATG was a ,get this, MOVIE!!!!!!!!. I say this to distinguish it from a documentary.
Ever seen the painting "Guernica" by Pablo Picasso? It's about the bombing of the city of Guernica during the Spanish civil war. There is not one bomb or gun in thr painting. Yet *gasp* Picasso has the balls to say it's about the Spanish Civil War????!!!!
The civil war is merely a back drop for Picasso to express the fear and terror of the innocent people involved. His painting is supposed to provoke empathy, not satisfy historians with it's accurate representation of warfare.
As mentioned before the battle at Stalingrad is a backdrop for the points the writers tried to make in the movie. You'd be very surprised to find out that some artists express themselves/make statements using historical settings. And if the artist is truly serious about his or her expression/statement, they may change a few things to aid them.
I truly hope that the people on this forum can seperate their grog side and art viewing side. In other words try to get over the accents, the stray T-34/84, and all other inaccuracies and try to view EATG as a movie about things other than warfare.
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-18-2001).]
-
Might I suggest TacOps? It isn't 3D and it's interface/mechanics are different than CM, but non the less is a great game
-
I actually found a site that will translate normal speech into that "leet speak" crap:
http://www.geocities.com/mnstr_2000/
1 L1ke t0 pL4Y c0M8aT Mi55ioN!
$33 HOW 345y 1+ 15 +O 8e 4 dUMb @5$?!
Translation:
I like to play Combat Mission!
See how easy it is to be a dumb ass?!
-
ROFL!
Wonderful post Capt! That just about sums up the way I feel. I'd like to think that I'm more to the middle of the two camps rather than the extreme, and I guess you feel the same way about yourself.
-
Originally Posted by Bullethead:
This situation to me is indicative of a "bottom-up" view of CM. It seems that such players view the totality of the universe as bounded by the map edges of this particular CM scenario. Hence, they are unconcerned as to how their force and its mission fits into the overall war context because they view the whole war as their single battle. Hence, they feel they have to provide for every need and are not bothered by selecting historically inappropriate force mixes. To me, it seems like this sort of attitude is a carry-over from RTS games, where the player's forces really ARE the whole show.
Is this sort of thinking *so* wrong? I mean if a person consistently wins ladder games using this way of thinking are you gonna tap him on the shoulder and say *in pinched nerdy voice*: "uh, actually your not playing correctly. You see..."
People want to say that CM is balanced, and that's so far from the truth it's not even funny. CM leaves the balancing up to the players. That's why there's the short 75mm rules and such. Because otherwise there is no in game penalty for one side being unbalanced. The same goes for picking historically correct unit mixes. Nothing is stopping you from being ahistorical except yourself and your opponent, usually via pre-game agreements. And most importantly, nothing is stopping you from using your units in an ahistoric and in a gamey way except you.
I will readily admit I don't read up on WWII much. I am much more interested in strategy and tactics, be it from Waterloo to Desert Storm. I am so sick of people basing whether or not something is gamey on whether they read if it happened or not. WWII lasted about 6 yrs. A thousand books could not fully documented every last detail of the war.
So, IMHO, taking a jeep or another fast vehicle to quickly peak around trees for recon doesn't sound too far off to me. OTOH, going up against 10 Elite KT and nothing but SMG squads does sound incorrect. But that case is an extreme. Hell using a jeep this way really isn't even recon! In the same way you might use a mirror to peak around dangerous corners to avoid having your head blown off, you can use a jeep to avoid having your ever so important armor blown to bits.
The gaminess is the fact that the CO (the player) has no regard for the lives of the troops he sends forward (the jeep example!). Any number of tactical manuever is possible in CM (that is why it is so great) but the simulation aspect fails when a person starts number crunching and willingly sacrifices his pixelated buddies. That is the issue and one that is hard to address. It is late I hope I have made some sense.This very true. But I think of it this way. You are a commander of company/battalion. You have been ordered to take a small objective by your superiors. This objective is a very small part of the war, but still, you have your orders. If the objective isn't taken by you, you or others will have to keep trying until it is. You as the commander feel the preservation of your armor is very important to the mission. Now, would you rather screen with a jeep and risk the lives of a couple of guys, or would you not screen, have your armor destroyed, have your forces decimated, and waste more life trying again and again to take the objective?
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-13-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Mlapanzer
And who will be the first to pick it apart as inaccurate?
LOL...ain't that the truth! Ever since I started playing CM it's like I can't avoid seeing all the inaccuracies!
Anyway, as of late I have been using sharpshooters sort of like they were presented in SPR. Meaning I keep them with a platoon as just another supporting unit. Having them accompany the point squad has had some nice affects. If I use them to scout they usually end up dying and if I use them in more of a sniper role I tend to forget about them.
-
Bump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Sometimes CM enters my dreams. Most of the times it's just wierd. But this time the dream made sense. In my dream I was playing CoOp CMBO!!! I don't remember all the details, but all I remember is that my friend and I were playing CMBO over a TCP/IP CoOp.
Since then I have come up with about a thousand different ways a CoOp mode could work. The variations usually are based on who controls what and or the amount of control each player would have (ie one player is the supreme commander, the other is the subordinate one).
So does my dream fortell a possible future feature of CM or does it make no more sense than the one I had about a dolphine, Mr. Rogers, and a piece of cheese the other night
? -
Is it just me, or can I see the signs that Identify the enemy mines? Uh...why???
-
-
hmmm...I thought I was agreeing with your point.
Ahhh! Sorry Jeff! Didn't mean to insult you. Thank you for agreeing and backing me up! I just thought more people might. But since this has been discussed before, everyone has probably reached they're own conclusions already.
[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-10-2001).]
-
Originally Posted by Michael emrys:
Nice try, Digger, but they are only counting the seasons in the designers' hemisphere.
See, what you need is to increase your population and gross domestic product. As to the former, you could invite me to come down and breed with several hundred of your more beautiful women. I feel confident that after a generation or so your GDP would rise as well as my superior offspring begin to assume leadership positions in your society. Call it a win-win situation if you like. Send me an e-mail and we can discuss my fee
Uh...eh...yeesh!
-
Whether manuevering a tank into hull down is fun or not, I feel it would be much more condusive to battle to just order the TC to do so. He has a brain and at least a few hours of tank expirience. Let him figure it out. Your the company/battalion commander. Yor job isn't to baby sit every shmuck on the field by taking direct control of the reins.
I honestly thought more people would agree with me. Everyone here seems to be anti-mico management and pro-realism. IMHO the idea of simply telling a TC to take his tank into HD status is both.
If you are expecting an enemy advance from, lets assume, the west. It makes perfect sense in preparing your defenses to find HD spots and order your tanks into HD towards the general direction of west.
It seems to me it make even more sense to order a tank into HD (if it's near HD friendly terrain) if the TC has the thing out in the open ready to get clobbered.
If this is truly not possible due to tech restraints, I understand completely (although I'd like to have BTS tell me that, not anyone else). If it is possible, I think it should be considered, at least by you wonderful guys (and gals) on the forum.
Any other "Total Conversion" style mods being worked on?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I'm really excited about Desert Fox Desert Rat! Conversions like this keep games alive and well (anyone familiar with Half-Life/CS can attest to that!)
Any more on the horizon that I haven't heard about?