metalbrew

I'll be sure and check with you anytime I have something to say. Obviously my entire self worth is built around impressing the forum suck-ups.

Well, both of those rifles pictured have the full-automatic selector. This makes me think they're not issued for marksmanship. The full-auto M14 is supposed to be tough to control so I'd guess both operators are special forces guys. The M14 mounting rail uses the stripper clip guide, directly above and behind the bolt. The mounting system to the side was used for the M1D (Garand). I haven't seen any side mounts for the M14 that were issued to troops.

You can't just pop a scope on a rifle and expect good results. Even removable optics require re-zeroing before use. Aside from that, there's no rail on that particular rifle. With no rail, there's not much chance of using removable optics.

Steve, Your response is a bit like calling me stupid and then buying me a beer. I'm OK with that, I like beer. I can take the PBEM bigot comments with a chuckle. I think you're off the mark though to say I'm demanding satisfaction or else. As a consumer, I really only have one vote. For me it's a lot better to voice my opinion right now when it can be heard rather than griping about it when it's too late to fix. So, as a show of good faith, I'll shut up now and let you have the last word. In exchange, the forum wants a new bone... screenshots... OK, so you really owe us nothing, but still... screenshots?

Steve, thanks for the response. Before I decided to comment, I did take the time to read all of the old thoughts about PBEM (including the ridiculously long 1:1 thread from a year ago). Please, keep in mind that all of my comments below are tempered by your comment that PBEM is likely to be included. Well, I honestly don't think I'm oversimplifying the problem. People want their opinion heard if they chose to voice it, so please understand that I'm not happy to be brushed aside so easily and labelled oversimplifier. The difference of opinion is rooted in the level of your passion for PBEM vs. my level of passion for PBEM. To me, there simply is no game without PBEM. This degrades the CM experience to the point where it's no longer a game I'd care to play. My feeling about the amount of time you and others have spent talking about PBEM is that it should be obvious at this point that it's something your customers prioritize very highly. PBEM as a feature stands right beside WeGo in importance, and I disagree that this can be reduced to how many customers use PBEM vs. those who don't. For every 1 PBEM game I've played, I've also played 100 quick battles. I wouldn't play Combat Mission at all without PBEM. The quick battles are just a way to model and learn more about units and behavior. This doesn't mean that my 1:100 ratio means I prefer QBs, I wouldn't take the time to QB if PBEM wasn't available to test my skills against a human player in a 2500 point battle over 2 months. TCP/IP, LAN, Hotseat do not offer the same experience. I have read more than a few posts from you along the lines of: "are you implying we should reduce the capibilities of the game just to include PBEM?". My response would be: no. I don't see the feature set vs. PBEM as a mutually exclusive discussion. I want all the features of the CMx1 games and all the new snazzy stuff you'll give us. Customer mentality is like that, you can't take away something people already have grown comfortable with. This is certainly where the rubber meets the road. Do you feel your marketing efforts are better or worse after going through 2 years of carrying around the black-eye of "the PBEM" issue? I think it's a fair question, and I mean no malice. They say that there's no such thing as bad press, but as I get older as a consumer I realize this has caveats. Upsetting the core fans has larger effects than you're publicly giving credit. In an imaginary world 7 years ago, do you think BFC sells games to the vast silent majority without the word-of-mouth from the fans? I've read a few posts from the PBEM advocates along the lines of: "no matter how large the PBEM files are, please include the feature anyway and we'll figure out how to make it work". That's how I feel too, bandwidth is so cheap today that we'll find a way to make it work. BFC doesn't seem too worried about whether the fans will have the hardware to run CM:SF, you guys know people will do what they need to do to overcome this hurdle if they want to play. Regarding expressing thanks for the games, etc... I'm a customer: my money is how I express my thanks for the games. However, I realize how much time you and other spend speaking with the fan base on the forums. I truly appreciate this time spent and I'd like to say thank you. Me too... Steve

I don't want to try and chase the analogy, but I do understand your point. If BFC posts an announcement that PBEM is definitely included, then I don't so much mind that effort was put towards realtime gameplay. However, if the opposite is true, it bugs me. How much it bugs me I don't want to say, but it's a lot and I don't want to lose PBEM to make room/time for BFC to implement a game mode I'll never play (realtime). In another thread I read a post from Steve @ BFC in which he said PBEM was a feature used by a small number of game fans. I can't guess what the number is, but I guarantee that the fans that PBEM are your core fans - the same guys/gals that take the time to fawn and flex over a wargame with a total of 5 screenshots released in a 2 year period. I hope this makes a point without sounding rude but I'm just frustrated reading all the "maybe we'll include PBEM" posts. Steve

</font>

Well, that's cool with me. If the standard parked vehicles can: a) be the host for an IED and be moved/bulldozed clear of the road then it fulfills my idea of dangerous interactive enviroments. The skinning is seperate for me, personally I'd like to see a ice cream truck IED.

The think the magically appearing threat is a good compromise. This allows mobile IED and suicide bombers to be part of the game. I agree that other solutions would cause a player to simply blast anything that moves indiscriminately. There are other IED types to consider, such as (static) vehicles on the roadside. A patrol making it's way through a neighborhood would do well to avoid burned out hulks of cars and debris piles where possible. If these objects were invisible until the threat is perceived then how would a player avoid coming down that street? Will the static IEDs act more like mines? For the same reasons BFC (and ultimately the player) shouldn't have civilians wandering around, I think burned out cars and such should be included. It entirely plausible for a patrol to bulldoze any suspicious (static) vehicle or debris pile off the road, after all it's not really the same as randomly killing civilians. Steve

What's an average map size for the scenarios planned within CM:SF? Will the fog of war play a larger role in CM:SF?