Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Dillweed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    317

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dillweed

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sergei:

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

    What disapoints me is all the whiney MFer who bitched and bitched for info/screens and now bitch and bitch about the timeframe and nations involved. Get over it.

    Maybe, just maybe, you could just take the chill pill and shut up. If people are whining, well, get over it. It's not like your bickering and abuse is needed by anyone, the least by BFC. </font>
    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by OGSF:

    Feck. Missiles? Abram tanks? Smart bombs? Wha's tha skill? "Lock, Shoot, Go Broncos!!" Didnae tha' tank commander ain Desert Storm sae, "The first clue they had that we were there was when their tanks started exploding!".

    Ah'll gi' BFC tha benefit o' tha doubt an' try tha demo, boot at's noo WWII ETO. Ah didnae gi' a toss aboot defeatin' tha Arabs, or drivin' a APC past a roadside bomb.

    Will there bae bulldozers sae Ah kin bury tha bastarrds ain their trainches?

    I think I agree with you.

    FYI:

    Generally we speak (type?) English here.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    What disapoints me is all the whiney MFer who bitched and bitched for info/screens and now bitch and bitch about the timeframe and nations involved. Get over it. Its going to be f*cking good and even if it isn't complaining and hurling thinly veiled insults at the creators really isn't going to make them give up the work they've spent the last 2 years of thier lives on. Its a change of pace, and with seemingly good reason.

    All that being said I think we all need to come together here and be happy. Its a new CM game for God's sake! I think if you are intrested enough to be here you should at least give the demo a shot. If you don't care for it, don't buy it. Just look at it as a good way for BFC to iron out the bugs before the ETO game. Plus game #2 will actually have more features (I actually would have preferred that CMSF be 2nd, but I ain't complaining) In the end I realize this is a wargamer forum, none of us are strangers to conflict. I believe my final thoughts are spelled out in my name sig.

    |

    |

    |

    v

    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

    Dillweed does that apply to New Orleans...

    Peter.

    Indeed, at the the risk of being political,If I were in command I would have broken out the real bullets long before they did.

    Edit: And that does go for the white "foragers" as well

    [ October 08, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

    I think there was a quote from an Iraqi tank battalion commander in GW1 who said something like "We went into Kuwait with 30 tanks. After six weeks of air attacks we had 25 tanks. After five minutes against the M-1 Abrams I had no tanks."

    Ground power is still where it's at. Just remember that Syrian T-72s are not the Asad Babyl tanks the Iraqis had. ;)

    OK Thanks

    I could be wrong but I was always lead to believe helicopters bearing anti tank missiles where to be the GREAT leveler of the battlefield on the Fulda Gap to over come the advantage in numbers of tanks the Warsaw Pact had present in the 80's compared to the lack of tanks on the part of the NATO forces, thus implying all the "extra" Warsaw pact tanks would be held back (destroyed) by squadrons of attack helicopters firing precise anti-tank missiles against multiple targets.

    BUT I could be wrong maybe it does not actually work that way in reality :(

    -tom w </font>

    0

    Where's the stickies gone?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

    Gosh Other Means, do you think the other participants in this thread will return here to acknowledge and admire our superior deductive skills? :D:D

    Yeah, and who was that guy that kept on predicting modern urban warfare... He seems like a sharp fellow, I just can't remember his name.
    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sergei:

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

    Quit yer bitchin, its gonna be good.

    Think of it this way, CMx1 was good becasue of Steve and the rest of the BFC team. Not beacsue of the setting.

    Quit bitching about our bitching and keep your opinions to yourself. It's not up to you to decide what I like and what I don't like. :mad:

    CM is good because it is CM. This, however, is a whole different potato, on so many levels and mostly in a bad way. Not only the setting, but also forces involved, scope and scale. </font>

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Quit yer bitchin, its gonna be good.

    Think of it this way, CMx1 was good becasue of Steve and the rest of the BFC team. Not beacsue of the setting.

    There have been a whole lot of bad WW2 games, but BFC made a good one.

    I imagine there talents do not only cover simulating combat ranging from 41-45. Just remember who we are talking about here. They have proved themselves very compatent in the past. I will assume they still are unless given CONCRETE (ie a bad game on my hard drive) evidence indicating otherwise.

    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    So we can assume that it will be focused on urban ops? Also to what extent does you guys have to CYA? Was the choice to have a more complexr political situation than "Yeah, we invade Syria" a purely story based choice or was it to not piss anyone off. I remember the DPRK getting a bug up its collective ass about the new ghost recon game.

    [ October 08, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

    0

    deteriorating terrain

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by J Ruddy:

    If there's one thing us Canucks know it's winter warfare. I remember when I was a kid, there were always joint manouevers going on in my area. One year whomever was in charge decided the US should do a winter airborne assault. Unfortunately it was -30C at ground level and God knows how cold at their jump altitude. That was the year that the US Army learned what happens to jumpers' "leather gloved" fingers and "wrong socks for the weather" toes in -30C weather. A friend of mine ended up having a platoon bivvied in his heated barn - I think only 2 didn't have frostbite and a few had to be evacuated.

    But I digress - I think if they can have multiple states for building hexes, they may be able to have multiple states for road and soft ground hexes. But then I am still thinking in the abstract cmx1 style. I haven't seen CMx2 yet, so this idea could be as doable as taking Moscow before Christmas.

    Joint manouevers aside, thats hardly the fist time US airborne troops have learned why doing something is a really bad idea the hard way.
    0
×
×
  • Create New...