Jump to content

dangerousdave

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dangerousdave

  1. I'm back to this game after a couple of years off. I feel pretty green, but would like to get PBEM game going. No preference on what size/date/side, etc.

    david [underscore] power219 [at] msn [dot] com

  2. Finished Tiger Valley (my last one). What a great scenario! One of the best ever, IMHO. GAJ and I had quite a battle.

    Kingfish, I sent the result, as well the one for Loaded for Bear, which BigDuke6 and I finished a while ago, but I don't think we reported.

    Thanks for another great ROW. When does the next one start? ;)

  3. Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Oh, I can't wait to see PETA's reaction to the third CMx2 game:

    Combat Mission - Operation Perfume Test

    As some people have pointed out, we're all about pissing people off. That's what we do, and we do it soooo well :D

    Steve

    I'm onto you guys, you are just hoping the fashion models will commence the nude protests! :D
  4. Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

    Can someone tell me, would the M240 in the WPNS squad require an assistant crewman to feed the ammo? If so, I hope Battlefront don't abstract this in the game. If the weapon needs a 2+ crew to operate, the full crew should be shown, e.g. a rifleman lying next to the M240 man feeding the ammo if that is what happens in real life.

    Yes, M240Bs, like nearly all GPMGs, operate best when there is an assistant gunner to provide a continuous link of ammo, switch out the barrel when it overheats, and properly feed the ammo into the gun.

    A proper 1-to-1 game representation should show this. I'd be really impressed if it ever shows the gun overheating and the AG swapping barrels. </font>

  5. Originally posted by GJK:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dangerousdave:

    Can you say "T-72 Balkans on Fire"? </font>
    I haven't played that, but BF is just publishing it, right? They didn't build it, as far as I know.

    My initial reaction when I saw this was, "CRAP!" to put it diplomatically. But the more I've read about it, and thought about the idea, the more I like it. I bet you'll play the demo and like it. :D

  6. Originally posted by Copper:

    I was hoping for World War 2 as a start. Working throught all the fronts then...modern warfare.

    I was of the same mind before the announcement. But I have to say, this looks really cool. Check out the stuff in This Thread, including the links on the Stryker. This is going to kick ass. Has BF ever let you down in terms of game delivery?

    Also, this way, when they get to WWII, it'll be that much better. Compare CMAK to CMBO.

    It's all good.

  7. Originally posted by Exploding Monkey:

    I'm looking forward to playing US conscri--er, National Guard untis:

    Ha! Great picture. But, as a former Guardsman, I have to point out that we always beat the regulars, Army and Marines, in the field. :D

    One thing that is going to be cool about this game is that it is going to be infantry focussed. Everything else is just support.

  8. US Army National Guard (Oregon), 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry Regiment. Light Infantry, 11B. 5 years ('86-'91). M60 gunner for most of that time, but team leader for the last year or so. We weren't deployed for Gulf 1. But that unit just got back recently from a year in Baghdad. Things have indeed changed.

  9. Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    A setting is only as interesting as the game system that simulates it. A simulation is only as interesting as the setting it recreates. They are linked together. A good sim designer can make ANY setting interesting if the sim is set up correctly. Conversely, if the simulation is great but the setting dull.. that ain't going to work.

    One of the problems I have with the "WWII Bigots" (hehe...) is that they think no other setting offers the same possibilities for interesting gameplay. I disagree completely. It's just that some of the other topics, like Vietnam or WWI for example, are more difficult to make fun and interesting because the subject matter isn't so straight forward as WWII is. Meaning, a mediocre developer has a better chance of making a decently realistic WWII game that is at least enjoyable to play than with other settings. Therefore, it isn't the setting that is the problem... it is the skill which it takes to make some of these settings interesting. If realism is compromised, then it becomes much easier since the developer can fudge their way around the issues.

    BTW, I never said helos were not in the cards for CMx2. What I said is we have no plans on doing hot LZ type helo ops where you have troops loaded transported and deployed by air. That's a big deal thing to do and we don't see any reason to do it in the near future.

    Steve

    Glad I misread that part about the helos. I'm not a total WWII snob in that I do believe a good modern game is possible. I rather enjoyed TacOps when I was playing it, but it didn't "stick" like CM has. I will look forward to see what you guys do with a more modern battle. I'm sure whatever you guys have in store for us will be a blast, given past performance. But I REALLY want the WWII game with X2, and of course, I want it NOW. tongue.gif

    And Space Lobsters really means Starship Troopers, yes? Lobsters are pretty much the same as the Bugs. That was one of my favorite AH board games back in the day.

  10. The great thing about WWII is that it is the perfect setting for armored battles on this scale. Its not just the rich historical setting, but the tanks and armies were varied and well matched. The weapons were at the perfect state of development. Modern combat, with its much greater firepower, guns, missles, laser bombs, etc etc, would not be as interesting on this scale. Plus, there is no way you can do it realistically without helicopters (there was a comment earlier that helicopters are not in the works). Plus, who really wants to fight hundreds of battles of US v Iraq, or the modern US Army v any other realistic foe for that matter? It can't be both realistic and well balanced. I think the scale of TacOps is more suited for this kind of combat, and the fictional setting of NATO types vs Soviet bloc armies is perfect for it. Just my two cents.

    Finally, I really don't understand how its even possible to get bored with WWII. :D

  11. This may have been covered, but I haven't seen it. Will CMX2 have the capability for troops to use stuff on the battlefield that has been discarded by others? Manning an abandoned gun (or even tank) would be the obvious example, but also the ability to pick up small arms and ammo from casualties and such would be a good addition. Certainly, this was a necessity for some troops, such as Russians who were issued ammo and told to pick up a rifle from the battlefield to use it. Even using captured arms from the enemy you just overran. Doesn't seem it would be that hard to do either since the game already leaves the abandoned gun/tank on the field, and bodies are left by casualties.

×
×
  • Create New...