Myles Keogh
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Myles Keogh
-
-
Finally got around to seeing it last night.
Overall, I enjoyed it. On a four star scale, I'd give it a 2.5 or maybe a borderline 3. I think the acting was pretty good especially Pitt and Lerman. (However, that "Deliverance" refugee was a bit hard to swallow.)
Its production values were terrific. And it clearly had a top-notch technical/military advisor as to getting the equipment, vehicles, and uniforms right. We've come a long way from the days when film productions would take a M-47 Patton tank, paint it gray, slap a cross on it, and dub it a "Tiger."
Unfortunately, I've seen way too many war movies and "Fury" has the clichés piling up left and right. So, I pretty much saw who was going live or die coming from about a mile away.
Two of the more reliable clichés: 1) Dumb Germans. They act like the stormtroopers from Star Wars movies: can't hit a damn thing when it matters and are so tactically inept that they wouldn't stand a chance against Ewok muppets, let alone battle-hardened American combat troops (especially Hollywood American combat troops) and 2) Altruistic "Hollywood hero" American soldiers who sacrifice themselves for "the cause." In reality, the conscript crew of that tank would have abandoned it so fast that you could blink and they would be gone.
And it has my biggest pet peeve: World War II was NOT fought by middle-aged men! WWII combat soldiers, like soldiers in all wars, were mostly kids: late teens and early 20's. Anyone over the age of 30 in a combat outfit was invariably nicknamed "Pop" by his much younger comrades. Yet, in "Fury" soldiers under the age of 30 are a rarity and 50 yrs olds are not an uncommon sight commanding tanks and armored infantry companies.
We would never stand for Hollywood portraying soldiers of the Iraq War or the Vietnam War as middle-aged men, but we tolerate it for WWII movies even though it's complete BS. I guess it's ingrained in us to believe that WWII soldiers were "older" men due to their being our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers.
-
I think that wish is also a result because we nowhere have the ability, not even in campaigns, to experience the different stages of a battle and to see the evolution of a battlefield over several battles.
If campaigns would store unit and map status at the end and allow to play battles on the same map, I think that morbid wish would somehow be reduced because the player would not only play virgin like or artificially predestroyed maps.
That was how CMx1's "operations" worked: a number of scenarios representing an extended battle being fought out on the same map with changing front-lines and battle damage (destroyed vehicles, ruined buildings ect.) being carried over from one scenario to the next.
However, BF ditched them for CMx2 for a number of reasons:
1) Glitches as to how the game redrew the front-line after every battle led to a lot of frustration and complaints.
2) CMx1's AI being particularly lousy at handling them which too often resulted in the AI immolating its forces within the first couple of battles and thus making the rest of the operation nothing more than a dull mop-up affair.
3) Lack of popularity. Not enough people actually played them to justify BF putting its time and money into making them to work better within CMx2. Apparently, a lot of players found the concept of fighting a number of battles on the same map to be too repetitive and boring.
On the other hand, CMx2's campaigns with their loosely connected scenarios usually only linked by a common subject have proven to be very popular probably due to the variety that one sees from scenario to scenario.
Personally, I liked CMx1's operations concept, but I can understand why BF dropped them.
-
1) Flame weapons/vehicles
2) Free French
3) Captured French tanks in German service for early D-Day and Market-Garden scenarios
4) Commandos/Rangers
5) New campaigns and scenarios for the above.
As for BF frowning upon providing #5 for "packs" or DLC? Well, it appears they've had a change of heart as seen in another thread:
Quote:
With that said, I think BF could monetize their investment better with more official battles and campaigns. I think they could also reach a little further in to the mainstream and extract more money out of their core audience with their existing engine and some investment in a real campaign framework. How many close combat games have been released on an engine that is perhaps halfway between CM1 and CM2?
It hasn't been something we've done so far because until recently it's been frowned upon because there was a time when wargame makers abused this model. It's why we have always had a full featured editor and "quick battle" features in every single CM game we've made. Pay once, play as long as the game holds your interest.
What's changed now is that providing small amounts of content is economically feasible thanks to digital downloads. As a result people have gotten used to Downloadable Content (DLC). As long as we don't hobble/abandon our current approach of including playable content, a full featured editor, and "quick battle" features in our products, I don't see why anybody could complain if we also offer pay-for-play playable content as an additional option. Meaning, it doesn't remove any options people have had for 14 years, rather it adds to it.
Steve
From the above it sounds like BF will be offering new scenarios/campaigns as either DLC or as part of the CMBN/CMFI packs. There have been other clues: Paper Tiger recently hinting that he's working on a new campaign and the Monte Casino map project mentioned by ChrisND also seem indicate that new scenarios and campaigns will be offered for sale.
-
As predicted, we're seeing another round of teeth-gnashing and rendering of garments by the "Why are we being charged for a patch!?!?" crowd exactly as we saw with the release of CMBN 2.0. And we'll see it again when 4.0 is released. That is if there is a 4.0 because BF could decide it's just not worth the abuse they take for releasing these upgrades.
The biggest example of why I like BF's upgrade policy is CMBO. Almost everyone posting here LOVED CMBO. A truly revolutionary game that certainly changed how I viewed the possibilities of PC wargames. However, BF released CMBB, an evolutionary game, which had numerous upgrades and features over CMBO. Unfortunately, overnight CMBO felt obsolescent in comparison.
Despite a lot of great memories and a lot of fun, CMBO was eventually deleted from my hard-drive and its disk chucked into the dustbin. Meanwhile, CMBB and CMAK remained until another revolutionary game, CMBN, removed them.
I don't want to see what happened to CMBO also occur to CMBN and CMFI. Not just yet. So, I think it's a great thing that BF provides us a way to keep the older games of the series up to date with the more recent releases. I would have happily paid more than $10 to have CMBO upgraded to CMBB's standards, but we were never offered the chance. However, we are now offered the chance with CMBN and CMFI and in my opinion it's something to be happy about.
-
I wonder if one 'surprise' is a North Africa module for CMFI?
CMFI and CMBN are most likely done with "modules." I'm thinking "packs" for those two games will be the most likely "surprise."
One of 3.0's big selling points was its inclusion of flame weapons/vehicles. Barring a miracle, those weapons/vehicles will NOT be part of the actual 3.0 upgrades for CMBN and CMFI. So, I suspect packs with those flame weapons/vehicles will be released not be too far behind or at the same time as the release of the 3.0 upgrades. It just wouldn't make much sense to release an upgrade with the ability to use flame weapons/vehicles, but then keep the players waiting months to actually be able to use those weapons/vehicles in the game.
For CMBN, I think any pack should include:
1) Flame weapons/vehicles (Crocodiles, Wasps, ect.)
2) Free French
3) early war French tanks in German service (Renaults ect.)
For CMFI:
1) Flame weapons/vehicles
2) Free French
-
I thought most of the SL/ASL scenario adaptions for CMx1 were terrible. As an ASL player, I was initially thrilled when I saw some old familiar names on CMx1 scenario download sites, but then I played them....
They were almost always terribly balanced with ugly, cardboard-flat maps. It quickly became clear that what made an exciting, fairly balanced scenario in ASL didn't translate when that scenario was adapted to CMx1. ASL's rules and CMx1's engine were two very different beasts. Unfortunately, too many ASL scenario adapters refused to accept this fact and continued to "paint-by-the-numbers" from scenario cards and map-boards and release substandard scenarios.
I did run into a handful of ASL adaptions that did work, but these were the result of the designer using the ASL scenario as a template but then reworking the balance and the map to make it suitable for CMx1. Of course, that takes a lot more work and effort than simply copying from the ASL scenario card which is why there were so few of them.
There haven't been too many ASL adaptions for CMx2 and I've mostly shied away from them based on my poor experience with CMx1 adaptions. One exception was a unfortunate campaign that was based on the scenarios included in an HASL module. It was pretty bad: painted-by-the-numbers with lots of "elite" troops running around in what were mostly very dull scenarios. (That the campaign designer didn't notice the world of difference between "elite" in CMx2 (fearless automaton warriors) and "elite" in ASL (an "8" rather than a "7") speaks volumes of the issues of just copying from ASL scenario card.)
-
Like many here, I was a former ASL fan who stumbled upon CMBO's development website in either late '98 or early '99. I occasionally followed its development and gave "The Last Defense" demo a whirl, but my PC couldn't handle it. So, when it was released in 2000 I passed it by.
However, "Band of Brothers" debuting on HBO in late summer 2001 got my WWII tactical juices running again. With my ASL modules collecting dust in my parents' house, my old opponents scattered around the country, Talonsoft's "Panzerblitz for the PC" games not providing the detail I desired, and my recent purchase of a new PC, I took another look at CMBO.
Reading the AARs on MadMatt's old site is what finally sold me. The AAR featuring Fionn crushing Bill Hardenberger in "The Sunken Road" really emphasized the game's depth and detail.
So, living in Manhattan, I ordered it either late on the night of 09/10/01 or very early on 9/11/01. I received my copy with the smell of smoke still heavily in the air. For me, purchasing CMBO is just one of those insignificant trivialities that got impacted into the memory due to a tragic event occurring around the same time.
-
A number of people had a problem with both Alt-T (trees) and Alt-S (sounds) commands not working upon CMBN's release including myself.
Eventually, someone found the culprit: the "WNA3100 Application" in the Windows 7 start menu. By disabling that application, I was able to get Alt-T and Alt-S to work and haven't had a problem since with either CMBN, CMFI, or CMRT. (BF's tech support didn't understand how a USB wireless adapter driver/software could interfere with CMBN, but it was certainly my culprit.)
Unfortunately, this solution will only work if you're using a Netgear wireless adapter which is associated with that WNA3100 Application."
-
I remember how frustrating it was when CMBB was released and made CMBO feel obsolete. The new common engine is much better.
Rather than games supplanting games, now it feels like an expanding system (a la Advanced Squad Leader).
Absolutely agree! Sadly, CMBO was regulated to my gaming dustbin because it just felt obsolescent in comparison to CMBB and CMAK. It's great that the same fate will not occur to CMBN and CMFI as Battlefront releases its engine upgrades.
However, upon 3.0's release for CMBN and CMFI we'll probably see another round of teeth gnashing and the rendering of garments by the "Why are we being charged for a patch?!?" crowd as what occurred with CMBN's 2.0 release.
-
Unfortunately, I don't think this one is suitable for solo play at least as the Germans unless one is a sadist and enjoys slaughtering the AI.
SPOILERS:
Being a meeting engagement, I suspected the AI would struggle, but its beautiful map, its seemingly interesting tactical situation, and its being a GeorgeMC scenario led me to give a try. It was a lot of fun for about an hour, but then I got my Panthers into excellent positions and the Soviet AI kept pushing its armor into what had become a kill-zone. The AI is lousy at meeting engagements which is why I usually avoid them. Since this is a 3 hour long scenario, I ceased-fired after 90 minutes to put the AI out of its misery.
The Panther is an excellent tank in CMx2! I lost just one and only had two others suffer any real damage (one lost its main gun and another had two crewmen killed), but the rest of the company absolutely destroyed their Soviet counterparts. However, the PzIV's didn't fare as well. Despite having them unbuttoned with mostly veteran crews, T-34/85s kept getting the first shot-off and one shot is all it takes for a PzIV. Still, the Panther company more than made-up the difference with individual tanks racking-up 7, 9, and even 10 kills.
-
V3 of my flames/tracers/smoke/muzzle flash/explosions mod.
Differences from previous versions:
Tracers tweaked just a smidge (barely noticeable).
Smoke is new.
Flames redone from scratch.
Explosions redone.
Muzzle flashes tweaked.
Thanks a lot for making these mods available. I have been using your effects mods since the initial days following CMBN's release and also use them for both CMFI and CMRT. I think of them as "must haves."
However, I prefer another's smoke mod. So, I RezExploded this mod to remove your smoke effects and noticed there appears to be no tracers included. [No beam_tracer or beam_tracer mip bmp's to be seen in any of the folders.] Were they left out by mistake? Right now, "barely noticeable" is a very apt description. So, I guess I'll keep using your old v3.tracers mod.
-
He already knows that, which is why he's back. Again.
Yeah, it's him. If his posting style didn't give him away then his putting forth one of his banned handle's mods as his own is the final proof. (The portrait used in this mod is one of those uploaded to GAJ's site under his last banned handle. Oops. Presumably, he'll probably claim that he's just "borrowing" it so he to keep-up the charade that he's a brand new poster.)
It really is bizarre how he feels compelled to keep returning to a forum from which he's already been banned twice. Even Dorosh wasn't that obsessively desperate.
-
Really great mod and really improves the interface. I have always especially liked the full color weapons instead of the funky green silhouettes.
Agreed. JuJu's UI is pretty much a "must have" mod for me based its full color weapon and vehicle slots. I really do not care for those 1970's Panzerblitz silhouettes that BF insists on using for CMx2.
-
I wonder if anyone has ever done a test of what happens if two rifle squads, completely out of ammo, enter the same space.
Two years ago, someone posted a youtube clip in the CMBN forum of just such a test, but the clip is no longer available. Without any ammo, the two opposing forces just ignored each other.
-
besides graphics, what is better with this game compared to CMBB? is the gameplay any different? how large is the community? I originally bought CMSF when it came out and didn't really care for it, are the more recent titles any better? if you own all of them, could you put them order of your most preferred.
Try out the demos for CMBN or CMFI or just wait until the CMRT demo is released. You're the best judge as to what you like or not so give the demos a whirl.
-
I agree but can't say I amm that surprised. It is the BF Modus Operandi. They know that, when we see the next module includes SS, Romanians, Hungarians, Soviet lend lease equpment in the next expansion - and I have a shrewd suspicion tht much of the above will be there, we will part with our money. It is in fact, I suggest, a pretty shrewd business policy on their part. One I can live with as long as the next module is available pretty quickly (ie a moth or two)
If you actually believe that BF will release a new module for CMRT within a "moth or two" then you should probably listen to Rob Halford and the boys:
With everything else on BF's plate for 2014 (1) patch for CMRT, 2) 3.0 upgrades for CMBN and CMFI maybe bundled with "packs," and 3) its 2nd modern war CMx2 release), I'd be shocked if we see another CMRT release prior to 2015. It'd be great, but my guess is that our vanilla Heer troops will not be joined by their SS and Luftwaffe comrades and/or Finnish and Hungarian allies for sometime to come.
-
These type of threads are always amusing: watching allegedly grown men acting like Veruca Salt: "I don't care how, I want it now!"
-
I wouldn't get all "refresh-happy" about any imminent release. BF uploading the manual for public consumption is usually the best sign that release is not too far off. That hasn't occurred yet.
Further, if you view ChrisND's weekly videos then you can see that work still remains. Although last week's videos had an encouraging sign with CMRT now having its own menu screens, the music is still from CMFI and there were other indications that the game is still very much a beta.
-
From a marketting perspective alone, CM:Bulge must be released as a new stand-alone game. "The Battle of the Bulge" is too well known by the average American to not leverage the marketting plan for a new game off of it. Forcing a new customer to buy something labelled as "Normandy" when they want "The Battle of the Bulge" doesn't make sense and would be confusing to said new customer.
Agreed. The Battle of the Bulge is a title that will sell itself. Always has. The Bulge alongside Gettysburg, D-Day, and Waterloo have been the subject of countless wargames because they sell. Those are usually the first titles a fledgling wargame company ushers out the door in order to quickly grab customers.
I know it drives Ost Front, MTO, PTO, and early war fans up a wall, but it's a fact of our hobby that games based on the Bulge will almost always sell more than games based on other titanic battles such as El Alamein, Stalingrad, Kursk, Casino, or Berlin.
Saving the Bugle for a latter release is unique marketing approach by BF. My guess it's their attempt to defeat the law of diminishing returns by hopefully injecting new sales life into what will then probably be CM 4.0 or 5.0 by appealing to casual PC gamers who couldn't give a fig about Commies fighting Nazis, but watched "Band of Brothers" and want to vicariously experience Bastogne.
-
Pure trollbait.
My guess is that he's trying to see how far he can push the envelope before bringing down the ban-hammer on himself. Ah, the silly, little games that some people play.
-
There seems to be a bit of "be careful what you wish for" in this topic. 'Feedback' as it relates to public chat boards is not always pleasant. I doubt anyone would want to post a perfectly respectable scenario only to find 200 messages from fourteen year olds telling them they're incompetent and stupid and deserve to die a slow lingering death. Okay, that's a bit extreme. More likely they'll be told their map is too big/small, gamepay is too easy/hard, their orders text isn't historically accurate or helpful or grammatically correct. Feedback can be a buzzkill sometimes. Sometimes its best to give your scenario to the world then move on.
There was a rather amusing incident on the CMBN mod forum a few months back. A player gave some brief but negative feedback about the play balance of a user-made scenario. And how did that scenario's designer react? By throwing what can only be described as an absolute fit!
He ranted on and on (with LOTS OF CAPITALIZATIONS throw in for emphasis) about how that player didn't play his scenario the "right" way.
It was appalling and amusing at the same time. Now, why would anyone even play that designer's scenarios again, let alone give him any feedback after that display?
-
What I find interesting is people who drop these types of "negativity Bombs" as I refer to them, never come back into the thread to defend their extreme comments against folks who come along later.
They have a purpose in mind.....to piss off as many people as they can, and then they probably sit back and chuckle as people react to their comment. They are not true believers, but just petty trouble makers.
One of the sadder realities of the internet.....any dope can say whatever they want, with totally anonimity, and without regard for the interests or feelings of other human beings.
That's what this is: pure TROLLBAIT.
He let off a stinkbomb and then sat back to watch the reaction. When responses dried-up, he popped back in to let off another.
It's pathetic, but I guess it amuses him on some level.
-
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I've always thought that policing up the WIA/KIA through buddy-aid helps morale or, at least, lessens the deterioration of it.
-
I admire some of Sam Peckinpah's films: "Ride the High Country," "The Wild Bunch," "The Straw Dogs," and even "Major Dundee." But I've never liked "Cross of Iron."
Peckinpah was an extremely gifted director, but he was also, despite being a former marine, a very undisciplined one. He'd start movies without completed scripts and then just go off on tangents when he ran out of written material. "Cross of Iron" is an example of one of Peckinpah's "undisciplined" films. Further, at that stage of his career Peckinpah was alcoholic/drug-addled wreck which further hurt the film.
While admire the performances of James Coburn, David Warner, James Mason, and the recently departed Maximilian Schell and some of the action scenes, "Cross of Iron" loses its focus and becomes increasingly bizarre and almost psychedelic. There is some really weird stuff going on in this movie. Mr. Mackey was right: "Drugs are bad, mmmkay."
I know Ostfront geeks love "Cross of Iron," but I think its popularity is more of a case of "beggars can't be choosers" rather than its actual merits as a film.
Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Exact same opinion here.
I also grabbed it for $7 or so, fiddled around with it for a short while, quickly realized that it didn't grab me and that it just seemed inferior to Combat Mission in too many areas, and that I really don't like real-time games. (The review feature of turn-based Combat Mission has always been one the game's most awesome aspects.)
So, I deleted it and shrugged-off the lost $7.