AlmightyTH
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by AlmightyTH
-
-
I'm embarking on doing a map also, on an actual battlefield and the closer to the real thing as possible. Hence one thing I'd like in the scenario editor, now that it's possible to work with contour lines, is a map underlay with over which we could simply trace them actual contour lines.
-
LOLOriginally posted by RedDevil:Well I guess we can always hope Matrix Games will buy the CMx1 Source codes and make it better
-
True in its strictest form. However, I think that to add platoon commands would still be a more than welcome addition to the game, particularly for Real-Time play, taking we don't eliminate squad level commands. Also, don't forget that the IFV/AFVs would have to be counted as separate, but linked, units from the infantry platoons.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:We're talking about level of command. The game puts the player in the place of a company commander. You're right in that no company commander would ever tell a squad where to go and what to do. He would tell the platoon commander what to do, who would tell the squad leader what to do, and he would issue orders to the fireteams in his squad. The company commander would direct everything. But a realistic company commander game would be dull. He'd have three units (platoons) under his command, maybe a weapons detachment also, and he'd tell them what to do and they'd do it with no further personal direction from him.
No one would play it.
Gotta think that in 2009 when the CMx2:EF comes out, PCs will be powerfull enough to handle scenarios with reinforced battalion on each side. Try to handle that in RT...
So IMO, a platoon level command system would be useful and would not deter from the fun factor one bit. As would be an attach/detach function actually.
-
While I'm not fond of RTS either, I'll probably start by playing in RT against the AI so that games are quicker.
-
bah nevermind this
-
I'd prefer to see CMx2:WWII (EF) 5 minutes earlier...
-
LOL
edit/ laughing about the FU formation of course
-
-
Check a map, Saudi Arabia is right next to Syria...
-
That was pretty careless of you,, now all CM players in your town will go crazy and want to break into your house tonight to get their hands on your copy. I know you don't have the intention of sleeping tonight, but I'd add a locker to your door to be sure... oh and add plywood behind your windows.
[ July 18, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: AlmightyTH ]
-
Map design takes also much less time I guess
-
Bah, you don't base your choice on a preview at worthplaying. Same for everyone.Originally posted by Steiner14:"...one of the better wargames..."??? CM and one of the better and not "one of the best" or "maybe the best" wargame this year?!
And the preview also reflects not at all the greatness and unreached realism, fun and thrill of the CM-concept.
If i wouldn't know CM, this review would not make me take a second look at CMSF.
They wait the professional reviews: Gamespot, IGN, Gamespy or the already made Tom's hardware preview.
-
nah, buy another book, like his books focused on a single operation, etc. His best book is "From the Don to the Dnepr". BTW, how do you do to actually read the colossus books? they are reference books imho, a bit like a dictionnary.
-
Orel is the really correct transliteration of the town, but if you want to follow the sound, you would have to write it like Aryol.
Because the O isn't emphasized (which means in Russian that it's pronounced like "A" and the e is actually ë (two dots on top which is pronounced "yo" and IS emphasized)
In city names like Kiiv or Kiev, an Ukrainian and a Russian will pronouce it the same way even if they spell it differently.
-
At least have an option when it ships already, no?
-
I see thruths in what you say kid.Originally posted by von Nev:I am disappointed in the setting although I will reserve the final view on the game until I try the demo.
My "problem" is I have 15 years (ending in late 2003) of service in the US Marine Corps. I have conducted joint training with with both Arab (Egyptian mainly) and former Soviet military personnel. There is just no real comparison between the two and the modern US military.
With a modern hypothetical settings one has the real problem with how does "model" what are known truths today about balance and realism. In the latest couple of "modern" wars where the US was involved they completely overwelmed and destroyed their opponents MILITARILY. There were battles in the first and second Gulf Wars were entire Iraqi regiments and divisions were annilated in HOURS!
Regardless of one's political view the US modern military today can only be effectively countered in training and equipment by its Western allies or perhaps the Russians states or the Chinese. I would be VERY disappointed if the thesis of the game will be that the modern US military with all of its state of the art military assets (M1A2's, arty, CAS, helos) is fighting on "equal" footing with Syrian forces. It just would not happen at anything larger than small units. If it did happen with large units the battles would be in minutes with the outcome predetermined. The Gulf wars and in the war in Afghanistan showed that small forces (as little at 4 man Spec Ops teams) were able to call in ENORMOUS amounts of firepower (arty, CAS, etc) and wipe out whatever they faced however big it was. Are the Syrians suppose to have an effective airforce? What would be the engagement criteria? The US forces stumble unprepared into a Syrian regiment dug-in? Would it be Syrian regiment versus a US infantry company to make it an "balanced" fight considering US ability to call for massive fire within minutes?
The basis for any theoretical engagement would be key. My view is that unless it stays small unit/small map where there is more "balance" because it is infantry-on-infantry and there would be less time to the US to "shape the battlefield" then the "realism" police will start sniffing around and poking holes in the game mechanics.
Anyway, that is my two cents. Fire away.
Marty
-
Aw! please, I play GTA 3 and don't have any hard feelings about myself killing cyber cops.
It's just the settings. They suck big time.
-
Too funny, I have to re-post itOriginally posted by Exploding Monkey:It's a ploy to get the US military to buy thousands of copies of CMSF for training purposes in case we have to go to war with Syria.
-
I repeat, the game setting should have been be a EU+Russia against US-UK thing.
That way it would sell really well everywhere...
+ there would have been 2 "able" opponents...
-
What about a game about events in 2010 and involving the US and UK in an amphibious landing of France or Belgium or whatever against France and Germany and Russia... it's all hypothetical anyway. And the setting would be familiar to us WWII lovers.
I mean, if it's going to be an over the top, non-believable scenario, make it real big or else people won't follow you (I won't for this one). The setting sucks for one, US vs Syria... how fair!!!
If you're not ready to make it (for political correctedness) the axis of evil (US-UK) against the axis of weasels (Fr-All-Rus), than resort to the good ol' scenarios: Russia trying to rebuild its lost empire. Anything else is bah..
-
If you wanted to recreate bigger battles, you would have to add a strat AI capable of it. Giving tasks to the commanders and let the commander-AI decide what to do. Maybe Battlefront should partner up with panther games. It would be the ultimate.
-
one
[ July 12, 2007, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: AlmightyTH ]
-
one
[ July 12, 2007, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: AlmightyTH ]
-
one
[ July 12, 2007, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: AlmightyTH ]
Wrong War?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Agreed.
For a ME game, we need an Israeli army, an Egyptian Army, a Jordanian army, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Army, etc.(!!!) more than a Marines module! And put equipment from the 40ies through the 2ks.
The only good ideas I have is to make scenarios between Israel and its neighbours played with Syrian and American equipment...