RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
Good question, Baron. Worst case obviously is needing the CMC CD to play the operational part, and then swapping for the CMBB CD. Unlikely, so likley they will just require the CMC CD in the drive for both games.
There will always be people who say "Ah, it's not a problem, I've never had a CD scratched" but if you regulary play 3 or 4 games, chances are you WILL scratch one over time if you're constantly swapping them around. I knew I came too close.
I also used to run CMBB on both Laptop and Desktop - which is a real bastard if you have to swap CDs and carry them around all day if you just want to quickly send a PBEM file.
CMBB (CDV Retail Distribution) can be found for 10 bucks in bargain bins around here; the complete anthology (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK) costs around 25 Euros. It's not like the official removal of the CD check will cause them huge financial loss by some pirates.
Herston, thanks for your reasoned post.
-
...sorry, the other topic was locked so quickly, that was just stupid. I want to say my piece as well, instead of just being insulted by some guys who feel oh so clever.
On the topic of CD Cracks and my "stupidy" for asking for it:
BATTLEFRONT THEMSELF have released Dangerous Waters without the requirement for a CD Check.
I don't think asking them to remove the CD-Check for the new released CMBB executable, a three-year old game, is too unreasonable a question if they voluntary remove the check from a brand new release.
I almost killed my CMBB CD once while swapping. Since then I use the crack - so what. I have the original CD and proof of purchase, I'm not a pirate, and like I said, Battlefront themself made it convenient for their regular buyers to use Dangerous Waters without constantly swapping CDs.
So, feel free to lock this too now.
-
Yes, I too read that there will be a new CMBB Executable, but that's EXACTLY the problem. Actually, two problems:
1) My current CMBB Exe does not have a CD Check anymore. After many years of CMBB, with the game in bargain bins if you can find it in shop, it would be nice if Battlefront leaves the CD Check completey out of the new exe.
2) If CMC comes with a new .exe for CMBB, then I'd like to know with what language version of CMBB this .exe will work. Best as I know, every patch update for CMBB contained a localized version of the .exe file, so CMC should provide a localized version for all the CDV distributions as well.
-
Well, as the Stryker Brigade has a fire support vehicle especially meant to coordinate with Arty and Air, you'd certainly have a lot more control over CAS than with CMBB.
-
No answers around?
-
Is that modelled?
-
This amounts to saying "Doesn't matter what we give the Syrians, they will lose anyway" unless fighting in urban combat. Yay...what a challenge.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Without aircover and close in maps the T-80s are likely to wind up as twisted piles of metal. So I don't think there would be much difference between a user created battle (Scenario or QB) that had a dozen T-72Ms in it than there would be a dozen T-80s. If it works for the T-80 it probably would work for the T-72M, with the opposite being the case too.
-
A nice textbook example again, but again I feel people fail to adress my point made before that post: The city was still 20% populated by civilians. Of the male population (which, as far as I remember, wasn't allowed to leave) many were not insurgents. And that meant the US Commander could not bring the full power of avalable assets to bear and had to check twice before shooting.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:An example is that in the second Fallujah offensive (al-Fajr) about 70-80% of the city was evacuated prior to the operation beginning. Roughly 10,000-15,000 combat veteran Marines and Soldiers, backed by the full array of support weapons, moved in to clear the city of roughly 2,000-3000 insurgents. Some amount of Iraqi military took part, probably around 2,000. This gave the attacker a near 5:1 ratio in men, massive and overwhelming support of heavy weapons, air power, artillery, PsyOps, Military Intelligence, UAVs, and other "force multipliers".
At the end of the 7 day combat phase roughly 300 US casualties were sustained with 38 dead. I think about a dozen armored vehicles, including a few Abrams, were knocked out in the process. 6 Iraqi soldiers also died along with probably 10 times that wounded. The Insurgents supposedly lost 1200 dead, 800 or so captured, and number wounded I did not see posted.
Sorry if I'm going on your nerves here, Steve, but basically what I keep hearing you saying is "It won't be a piece of cake for the US Side, look at Falujah/other Iraq battles". Perhabs I'm hearing you wrong, but that's how I understand your posts.
But then, next sentence, you say "there won't be any civilians".
Like I posted before - everyone's free to image the Iraq Combat/Insurgency Scenarios if the US Commander could be 100% sure that there would be no civilians present, and every non-US/non-NATO Human in sight would be classified as enemy.
So, please Battlefront...sketch the game from the Syrian point of view (the view of the player playing the Syrian side in a QB or Scenario) - without references to counter-insurgency operations in current Iraq where "asymetrical warfare" mostly means hiding behind civilians and in citys full of same.
What exactly will prevent the opponent (the player on the US Side) to call in massive artillery and CAS support, to use massive firepower (M1A2, Stryker MGS) to take down full buildings etc.
The more I read here, the more I think this game will just not be playable (absolutly not fun) from the Syrian side. Unless you accept that the US Player can kill all your troops at a 1:4 ratio and then get a slap on the hand saying "you sustained too many casualitys" - but the Syrians are still dead.
-
Okay...after years of owning CMBB ive really gotten used to the convenience of not constantly swapping disks anymore...as i'm using a 1.03 no-cd crack, while my original disk is safely stored away.
With Dangerous Waters, BFC did not add a CD-Check...can we hope that CM:Campaigns will spare us the hassle as well?
Oh, and how will this work with the CDV-distributed copys? They always needed a separae patch so will there be separate new exes for the campaign import/export?
-
Sounds more like beginner's luck to me. Really. After all, you didn't get that award in 2001.Originally posted by Madmatt:So, maybe, just maybe WE KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING!
[ October 14, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]
-
I think you're being a bit to nice to him, Jochen.
-
I have the feeling this will be complicated.
I'd guess that inside (or in bags on the outside) for each Stryker there would be additional ammo stored?
Not just that, but then also 1:1 representation should mean they keep the ability to pick up ammo from casualitys.
-
Okay, me again with all the same concerns again
I may be wrong (and some certainly will tell me so)...but...the key problem in "balancing" the syrian side to me still seems to be the lack of civilians.
As far as I understand it, asymetrical warfare without civilians just doesn't work very well. Irregulars, ambush-groups etc. like to hide behind the general population. The fact that you can't bomb entire citys because civilians live there is the only reason the US has such problems in Iraq, or not?
For a small experiment, imagine the current OIF Situation if there were NO civilians left in Iraq. If everyone who isn't US or NATO would automatically be an enemy. If you're riding in a convoy and you see other people you'd automatically open fire - no easy ambushes anymore. If the Irregulars have a strongpoint in a city, just shell/bomb the hell out of the city.
Does that seem a valid point? Then, if that point is true - there aren't many asymetric tactics left for the Syrians. And in a conventional, symetric fight they will always lose.
In other words, I still can't get my head around the idea how this game will be fun to play as Syrian Commander. The only thing handicapping the US Player will be the boundary of acceptable casuality rates and trying not to get over that. But that isn't a lot.
Oh, and for a positive idea: Would it be possible, if not to include civilians, to at least "fake them" in the following way:
What if a syrian irregular could not be shot at before he starts his first obviously hostile actions or displays obvious signs of being a guerilla?
Meaning, the US Player will obviously know that this is an enemy unit he's seeing, but the Tac AI could be made to not allow firing orders on someone who "looks like a civilian" until the guy raises an AK-47 and starts peppering the US Units.
This would, without the need to model civilians walking the streets, allow irregular syrian units to "hide" behind civilian behaviour. I'd be similar to a soundcontact in CMBB, where you know something is there, but you can't give targeting orders.
[ October 14, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]
-
Nope. It's a political problem, just as taking too many casualitys. Unit Leaders who can't get the job done without screwing either thing up are likely to be replaced.Originally posted by Heil3451:It's still well outside the scope of CM's tactical scale and focus.
Seems that a cap on the allowed amount of cas will be implemented as a way to make the fight more challenging for the US Commander in this game, so adding another challenge in the way of taking care of the wounded is a good idea.
AND the Stryker Company has it's own MedEvac Vehicle. Give the player a reason to use it.
-
Well, if they keep the US Force down to a Stryker Company, then yes, that's "all" you would see. And on a lowly infantry/armored car level, the two sides would be fairly equal (especially if we have have the BMP-3).Originally posted by Rollstoy:I am still trying to figure out if this is correct, but it appears to me as if the Syrians, at least in the game, have to deal mostly with APCs that can be destroyed by everything heavier than 14.5mm and have (in most cases) only a MG for self-defense?!?!?
Best regards,
Thomm
But as soon as they introduce a M1A4 in support role outside urban territory, and as soon as the US Players calls superior CAS/Arty, we got problems.
-
Seems correct.
Also...if every Rifle Platoon has three Rifle Squads, a Weapons Squad and a Platoon HQ, then how do they all fit into just 4 vehicles/Platoon?
-
This is IMHO an important point. Having, for example, a 10% casuality treshold for the US Side in a given mission will make it more challening for the player commanding the US Troops. Okay, so far that's sound game design.Originally posted by Dinger:Some of the objections are interesting. While we can argue that balancing will come from different loss threshholds, even so, it's just not as satisfying to score that one kill against the enemy's 100.
But for the player who plays the Syrian troops? Like I wrote in another post, in theory the syrian commander in a Quickbattle/Scenario could witness all his troops wipped out to the last man, and then towards the end of the mission, suddenly you get the message "US sustains too much losses, Syria wins" :confused: .
-
Hhmm. Seems to me a lot of emphasis for "making it harder for the US Player" is about allowing only limited casualitys.
Now, playing from the Syrian side, this will be a tad bit strange. Basically you'd play out a syrian ambush, lose all your men and weapons while only inflicting "some" casualitys to the american convoy - and then, when all or most of your men are dead, and the US drives on - you win the scenario because you inflicted more cas than the other side was allowed to have?
-
Hhmm, it's an interesting concept for a company ToE. I still don't like the settings but these are some cool toys to play with, especially if engineering, dismounted mortar stuff and the sniper team are all there.
On another note, this also shows that even a battle at single company strenght would have plenty of stuff to command around. Especially if the Rifle Squads can also be split in teams.
-
...and of course there will be grogs around complaining about the wrong make/model of the abandoned cars in the street.
Seriously, agree with URC...this only makes sense if there is prober collision detection enabled in the game.
-
LOL, bad BFC...baaad.
-
From the BFC Tidbits, it doesn't sound like they want to model anything else than "all out war", the first phase of the invasion. So, no checkpoints or Hummer Patrols.Originally posted by MikeyD:If someone builds a scenario with a dozen T72s rushing a lightly manned checkpoint at night that'll be one type of battle. If they do a patrol of M1114 Hummers rolling through a heavily built-up area that'll be another.
-
But would that be realistic? For WW2, it just so happened to be real. The russians and americans had lower-developed hardware (T-34, Sherman vs. Tiger & Panther) but had tons more of it than the few pieces the germans could build.Originally posted by antawar:Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player.
Yet in this hypothetical setting, I think the Syrians actually have less tanks then the US? So you can't just give them more of their stuff for play balance reasons.
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, too.
-
Seems to me the original question hasn't been really answered.
I'd really like to hear from BFC how this will play out for the syrian side. The more I read, the more it seems to me their aim is not to model guerilla warfare - but then, what's left for the Syrians to score with?
Attacking from opposite/ multiple directions.
in Combat Mission Campaigns
Posted
Cool. So we'll see all-round "igel" defense tactics and breakout manouvers.