Dillweed
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Dillweed
-
-
Think those would require "vastly differnt units" and thus different titles. If we are going hypothetical tho, I'd like to add one to the list '45. T-34s v shermans *shudder*Originally posted by fytinghellfish:I would give my right nut for a NATO/WP game. Maybe with modules for '62, '79, '85 and '89. Woot.
I also seem to recall a link to a compeditor's web site being removed. Fascists I tellz ya.
I apologize if I offended anyone's delicate sensibilities with my bad bad language.
For the record I think some saltly language sound (in the vain of soldiers taking a smoke break) would add some nice flavor. From my expirience in the US Army if an ATGM barely misses a styker (say scrapes some paint off as it flies by) the troops inside arn't gonna be saying "darn" Swearing in the USMC module could be more creative.
-
From what I understand winter would have to at least be a module, if not a new title. But I can't imagine the eastern front without it so assuming a EF game is made I'm sure we will be get at least a module for winter
-
Would we, perhaps see a syrian campaign in a module?
-
In a word: no
BFC has pretty much stated that there is no way they will do this.
-
As I had originally planned this post, I was gonna be a prick and write some 3 page post about how everyone except me is wrong wrong wrong.
**** that.
I have stated my point before, others have stated theirs. I still think I am right, but I will be the first to admit it is a mostly an intalectual point as the posts getting locked down arn't really contributing to the community.
Steve
Sorry if I pissed you off, I always find your military related posts well thought out and informative. I also seem to recall you hand a hand in some semi-decent wargames I played a while back.
-D
-
What was the Napolean said? "Lts discuss tactics..."Originally posted by panzermartin:It has been mentioned that stryker's advantages are mainly on the logistics side, so I see no point in debating something so insignificant.
And yes mace, I agree. All of our opinions are equally worthless.
-
Sorry, but thats an analogy that just doesn't hold water for me. Theres a big big diference between saying you don't want to try something and saying others are not allowed to try it. Critizing a game based on what you think it will be like is comparable to not reading a book because you think it will be offensive.Originally posted by Madmatt:You can't critize a game based only on what you THINK it will be like. Thats like banning a book you have never read because you THINK its offensive.
Madmatt
In that case my response would be the same for the people saying they are not gonna buy CMSF, sucks to be you.
I would like to go on record again stating my opposition to locking down posts. I would be perfectly happy yo point out to new people just discovering CMSF and being disapointed that:
1) Modern land warfare is no cakewalk. DS and OIF were exceptions, not the rule.
2) Modules will expand options for different armies
Also, I will state once again that I am really pumped about SF. I just think locking down dissent (no matter how idiotic) does more harm than good.
Its a "disagree with what you say, defend your right to say it" sort of thing.
-
I hope we get something better than the "droppy turret" after a tank is knocked out. The only thing I can think of thats better than blowing a big smokin hole in a T-72 with a javalin is seeing a big hole with smoke coming out where the jav hit.
-
I'm offended that I wasn't listed in the blind unwavering support part.
-
oooh, 301 posts! MELTDOWN MELTDOWN! How bad does the forums get forked up when this happens?
-
Hmm, I was not aware. I figure you shouldn't get an accureate count when the bullets are still flying, but in the AAR, you should get concrete numbers.
-
Something that always bugged me in CMx1: At the end of the battle when looking at the kills for various units the artillery spotter always has either 0 kills or perhaps just a few. This is the case even if the artillery strike was the major turning point of the battle.
Anyone know why this is, and if it will be fixed in CMx2?
-
Like they did with CMX1 you mean?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:
I doubt they would have put in the effort they have to build the game engine up from scratch and put it at the core of their future buisness strategy, if they plan to stop producing games for it within three years.
Peter.
There could be a CMX3 three years down the pike. </font>
-
Is that winter of 05 and spring of 06? Or winter of 06 spring of 07?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We're still shooting for the end of Winter 2006, but it will likely be Spring 2006.
Steve
-
I believe it is spelled Croft. Oh, BCGs, takes me back...
-
Somehow, I'm having a difficult time picturing CM: Fauborg-de-Vacelles.
You're right of course. To be honest, I hadn't heard of several of those. Unfourtunetly, there are the marketing considerations. I'd go so far to say that if the battle did not appear in some form in Speilberg movie/mini-series we're not likely to see it. So Overload beaches, bocage, Market Garden or the ardennes are my guesses.
Arnhem would indeed be a cool game, but it suffers from the killer lack of americans previously mentioned. My guess for game #2 would be a Normandy title centering on an american infantry company with modules for brits, commonwealth and airbonre.
-
From what I understand of the module concept a Stalingrad game (in my uninformed opinion the most likely setting for an eastern front game, if a EF game is made*) would only feature, say, the city fighting of the fall, where modules would require different units and terrain. Say, the summer push across the stepps or the winter counter offensive.Originally posted by kipanderson:Hi,
“I think that an East Front game would be either Stalingrad (name recognition)”….I tend to agree…and from my own selfish point of view could just about live with the later, winter Stalingrad fighting as a setting
. But would still prefer late war .Also, there are many big changes to CMX2 over CMX1 but in terms of game play CMX2 is clearly optimized for close in city and urban warfare. In terms of the quality of the simulation it looks to me as though the biggest leap forward will be in close quarters combat.( If only because CMX1, certainly without absolute spotting, simulated the slightly longer range fighting so well already.) Stalingrad would show this in a very flattering light.
Time will tell.
All the best,
Kip.
To say the CMX2 engine is designed primarily for urban ops is, as far as I know, incorrect. Urban settings are just being more accuratly modeled. AFAIK the CMx1 combat model was for the normandy area of CMBO. Bocage, some more open areas and the occational farmhouse. Cities were treated as very large groupings of individual farmhouses.
I believe ourdoor more long range engagements will be properly modeled as there were no major urban engaments in the western front of the ETO. So if the engine was urban centered CMBOx2 would either be of VERY limited scope or really lame. The other possibility is steve was telling the truth and the engine is very flexible.
*Remember there will be only 5 CMx2 games. We already have 3 settings
1)Modern
2)WW2 western front
3)Sci-fi/SLOD
I'd say eastern front is a good bet for 4 or 5, but there are a whole lot cool settings for wargames. Eastern front does not have Americans (not a dealbreaker as we've seen with CMBB, but not the best thing for sales) For the record, I'd love a Stalingrad or Berlin game.
[ November 15, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]
-
Prolly the first, unless the kids are swearing in a different way now.
-
Don't think this has been asked, if I'm wrong someone please fill me in.
Steve, why do a game based around reltivly new fairly unproven weapons system? As opposed to say something more traditional like a Bradley/Abrams combo. I was explaining the game to a friend (a mild fan of CMBO), and this was the question he asked. I didn't have a good response.
-
Actually steve specifically stated that as a mission type for the campaign. I believe it was in refrence to why the campaign wouldn't be mult-player. A styker company vs a sniper team could be tense for the US player, but not for the syrian player.Originally posted by Colin:I believe that is the M21. A modernized M14 designed for sharpshooters.
The Delta snipers have one in Blackhawk Down IIRC.
Obviously 2 snipers taking on a huge number of people isn't likely in this game but does the US operate with sniper teams at all?
I could see them being useful in a situation similar to the one BFC outlines for CMSF.
-
perhaps both!
-
Yes this should be stickied. Increase your screen resolution.
-
CM: SLOD has been confirmed. Just "not nessessarily with space lobsters"
"I can state that we have an unofficial list of our Top 5 subject matter for CMx2. As I've stated pretty clearly, not all are WWII I'll at least go so far as to say that contemporary (i.e. current/near future) combat is on there as well as Space Lobsters. And no... I am NOT kidding about the latter."
Getting pretty off topic, feel free to lock this up
-
Well i'm excited, but thats nothing new. I'm intrested in panel 4. Seems pretty self explanitory. Wonder what that PDA like thing is, or the dark shape to its left...
. But would still prefer late war
the truth about CMSF and this board ;o)
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I don't think tanks are the end all be all. You will admit, at least in CM if the opponent has tanks and you don't have any method of taking them out you're going to be in for a world of hurt.