GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
First, well done on a very different looking map. Just one minor thing, well more than minor actually. The Taliban dont have the missiles to destroy NATO vehicles at the range they do in this scenario. Well, they might do but as they havent demonstrated this so far to my knowledge I remain to be corrected.
Bloody interesting map though.
-
And yet although I play more SF than I do CM-1 Im often still left with the feeling that SF is all about using a first world A Team to beat up a 1970's C Team. Although I dont have a huge problem with it as I tend to try and play Afghanistan esque battles.
I do genuinely feel that somewhere in all these discussions is a middle road as it is a game after all. You should play games for relaxation and entertainment and theres no doubt that Ive had a lot of fun out of it, especially the last year when I think it has been very playable. you just have to find whats most enjoyable for you and if you genuinely dont like it after all this time, then it surely must be time to move on, or wait for Normandy.
All that said, I do feel that SF could benefit from a much more robust infantry model, the word simulation is oft bandied around here to describe SF, but I really do think te game is an approximation of infantry rather than a simulation. However, I understand the limitations of the CM-2 system and perhaps by the time we get to CM-3 the infantry may be simulated more realistically.
-
No matter how enjoyable CMSF is, and it is very enjoyable, there is always that feeling that it would never happen in real life. Where as ww2 did happen in real life. And so SF is a fictional what if type of game where we get to use a lot of Western forces against a very weak 3rd world 1970's esque force.
As there is no going back then we have to play with what we get given and this essentially is what makes SF a mostly single player game for me, which is Ok in itself, but definitely not the experience of past CM games.
-
I am thinking that maybe it is time to give CM Normandy its own forum and let the CMSF forum be about, er CMSF?
-
All the European released stuff was de-Nazified because CDV is a German company. They couldn't warehouse the product in Germany if it had naughty bits in it. Therefore, it didn't matter where you bought it within CDV's European territory. I can't remember if CDV USA used the de-Nazified version or not. Probably did.
Battlefront's product, on the other hand, was brimming with full National Socialist love of evil symbols. Heck, we even put on the box "Battlefront explicitly endorses the views and policies of the NSDAP and denies the Holocaust. A portion of the sale of this product will go to help rebuilding the Chicago Nazi Party, which is still recovering from the Untermenschen Blues Brothers' cowardly attack funded by homosexual Communist Jewish bankers." In fact, it was BF.C policy that after each post on this Form that posters were supposed to say Heil Hitler or have their accounts "resettled". However our requests never caught on, like arguing about Bren Tripods, so we eventually gave up on it.
So I guess the German government is right... a correct and appropriate historical use of relevant Nazi symbols does indeed make you lose touch with reality and have an irresistable urge to invade Poland.
Steve
Brilliant Stuff, although for obvious reasons the German govt might not agree with you and I can see where they are coming from.
For the rest of us though, it shouldnt affect us.
Cheers
-
Certainly the usual. German and perhaps pan-European law forbids the casual display of Nazi emblems. So if BFC wants to sell in the EU, they have to observe all the niceties. I suppose an argument could be advanced that CM should be allowed an exception as a quasi-historical document, but I don't think that would ever fly in any EU court of law.
Michael
How would this work? Say I want to download the game direct from BFC and live here in the UK where no such laws exist, am I forced to d/l the Swastika free version of the game?
Seems a wee bit unworkable to me.
-
Yes well, apart from Russia and Egypt then Turkey is nearly the only country in the world that spans two continents. Maybe refining it to mention it spans them by a bridge works better!
-
As someone who played a whole lot of PBEM and live games in CM-1 I find that CMSF plays best for me in single player. Although I do have a couple of SF PBEM on the go right now in a Tournament at WaW I prefer the RT play which I find much more responsive. I have yet to play an TCP game of cmsf as not a lot of people seem to want to play it.
-
Two pieces of luck. Montgomery got 8th Army after Straffer Gott was killed while on his way to taking over 8th Army. Montgomery got the nod as a second stringer, if you like. Still, it should be obvious (even if only with hindsight) to all that
a) Montgomery was a vastly more qualified and suited for the role than Gott
Even though the second choice, Montgomery wouldn't have got the nod to command Britian's preeminent army in the major active theatre if he'd been a chump (or even an "incompetent douchebag")c) Montgomery's plan for Alam Halfa owed something to The Auk, but not a whole lot (unless you lap up Barnett like a puppy dog)
d) Although based on the prior work of others, Montgomery's successful integration of Army and Air Force was revolutionary
e) Montgomery's plan for the breakout in October '42 owed practically nothing to The Auk (unless you lap up Barnett like a puppy dog)
f) Montgomery's plan for the Sicilian invasion was better than the initial proposal. Like everyone on the Allied side, his execution of the land campaign wasn't that great
g) Montgomery's contribution to the NEPTUNE plan was crucial
h) Montgomery's plan prior to and throughout Normandy *was* that the UK/CW would tie down the Germans in the east while the US broke out in the west. Granted that plan wasn't exactly realised in terms of time and/or place, but that 'failure' is incidental to the overall success of the Army Group plan
i) Montgomery was a throughly unpleasant and unlikeable person, but he was also a highly successful commander
I have to agree with John here. Theres no doubt that Monty was someone who you probably wouldn't like if you met him in a pub, or anywhere for that matter. However, he was no idiot and certainly knew how to fight the Normandy battle.
He saw the original plan and added to it, made it more robust and made it work. He predicted quite correctly how long the battle would take and what it would take for his forces to win.
He also commander the whole battle and his forces fought the Germans every day of this battle. Much maligned by historians, especially on the US side for his supposed caution and British inactivity, in fact the opposite is probably true.
Sure he made bombastic claims such as Caen on day 1 which never came to fruition but overall he fought a great campaign using both US and CW forces.
Was he an arse, yes he probably was, does he deserve to be maligned for his plan, I dont think so. I dont think many people would have liked Patton either come to think about it. Another man who seemed to get up everyone's nose!
-
Turkey is part of Europe now, yes?
Turkey has always been part of Europe. In fact its the only country in the world that spans 2 continents. Also, Turkey is very much part of NATO, how about a Turkish module?
-
Just one point to add here and its a small one. To my knowledge Mines arent allowed to be deployed by Blue in Afghanistan and even thought the US didnt sign up to the anti mine accord Im not sure if they use them outside of Korea. Although I did read once somewhere about a planned use of timer mines at an airbase, but that may just be my imagination.
-
This map shows how the expectation was to capture Caen on D day and get past Avranches by D+20. No wonder In reality it took two months for Avranches, and Commonwealth still hadn't gotten further than Caen.
One of the interesting things about that bigger map is that the plan for D Day plus 90 wasn't that far off actuality.
-
Convoy commands would be good. But dont expect anything that isnt in CMSF right now. I think they have other things to worry about before anything else is going to get tackled.
Using the right mouse to select unit orders would be a good improvement though.
-
I have this fear a 'bocage expectations gap' may develop.
And no, I don't know what Normandy game bocage looks like.
I hope that little wink means your busily testing the game right now. I would imagine that a game which can be 'ready' to play if BF want it before Xmas 2009 but are holding back until just after because they need to sleep would be in the Campaign testing stage sometime soon.
If past Modules are anything to go by they have apparently been held up with the Campaign testing rather than anything else. Or have I been reading these fora wrong all these years?
In fact, when I think about it shouldnt a new Normandy Forum be up less than 90 days before release? When did the CMSF forum arrive?
-
Slightly OT but, to explain a curiosity someone brought up, the British Army fought against the Crown in the 1640s (in the form of the New Model Army, of course). I think that screwed their chances of receiving the 'Royal' prefix and it's never been altered since.
The British Army is a collection of Regiments that way back were traditionally raised by individuals for the Crown. There are a lot of Royal regiments, Anglians, Scots etc but this collection was never formed into a Royal Army. The Royal navy was commissioned by the government and the Royal Air Force was likewise formed. But the Army remains as it always was, that same collection. Its a wee bit more complicated than that and also involves various unions of Armies, as in the English and Scots Armies when the Crown was unified and then the various Irish regiments.
Over time it just evolved into what it is today, the British Army.
-
Well if I recall it wasnt so long ago that Steve said it would definitely be out in 2009, no doubts about it. So I think summer 2010 (UK Summer) will be about right. Im not stationed there now, I forgot to change my location, I got back a week ago. Good to have normal internet again!
-
I think the reason many think the Brits are not very good is that theyre used to using Javelins and 20mm cannon and Bradleys etc etc, which is all well and good but they may not be thinking tactically.
CMSF is somewhat unrealistic in many ways, especially when it comes to the Brits. We get a lot of light vehicles but they are too vulnerable at most CMSF ranges and so guys automatically think they suck. In real life a lot of those vehicles wouldnt go near the enemy as guys want them to in game.
Again the Brits were never designed to fight the US, so complaining about them not standing up to the 'big boys' is a little daft. Actually in Real life UK soldiers more often than not kick the US asses in exercises.
The key to CMSF and the Brits especially is time as Sgt Joch says above. If your willing to wait, then you will usually be rewarded. Heck, I think Im failing if I have to debuss my guys from a Warrior.
-
I imagine as the game is already somewhat behind the curve already that BF dont want to delay it forever, that said there would be no point in delivering a shoddy ww2 game.
From all that Ive read here on this forum I cant imagine us seeing this before Summer 10. Plenty of life left in CMSF for now anyways.
-
As a wargame CMBB is probably unsurpassed in its content. What else could you play from 1941 to 1945 and have so many units included. Also the infantry abstraction seems to work better than the CMSF 1-1-ish portrayal.
However, CMBB looks and feels dated after playing CMSF and at 1.2 this game has never felt better to play. There are a few things that guys want, QBs etc, but me, I was never a QB fan anyways.
In some ways, CM-1 games are easier to play, the right mouse click for example, but CMSF introduces the mouse wheel command which is so much better.
So back to the question, yes, I still play CM-1 games, but CMSF is when everything is taken into account a much slicker game and although I dont think of it as a Sim, it is as close as anything you will get right now and definitely gets my vote, oh and it also looks good too.
-
I dont think its any great secret that I am a moderator at GS. I dont see your point, all I see is you carrying on about 1 or 2 guys at GS as you accuse them of carrying on about BF.
Somewhere in between is the truth of it all and you can and do gripe and grate and bully when you want to.
Im also very much involved in WaW where there have been equal discussions about CMSF, but hey, the guys there are not the same ones as you seem to carry a grudge for at GS and so it never seems to get a mention.
I'm not even trying to argue any points with you here except that the GS guys arent anywhere near as bad as you are making them out to be and stupidly, they can tar you and others here with exactly the same brush.
I have never really had to MOD anyone at GS other than a mutual friend or two and without mentioning any names I have a feeling that you share no love at all for one of them. While some of the things that are said at other forums may be negative towards BF they arent necessarily lies.
This is yet another round of lets play storm in a teacup here and in my humble opinion it really doesnt make either party look any good.
-
This is a tactical wargame right? Being familiar with fire/movement, cover, concealment, suppression, suprise and the like etc etc., its not too far a stretch to understand the tactical possibilities of 'just' being able to move under a bridge. And to be honest the small bone was a lot more than that so lets not be facetious.
To be honest, yes any bone is better than no bone at all, but Id much rather see other, more important features of the game and how they really will affect gameplay in CMN over CMSF.
CMN shouldnt be compared to CM-1 I dont think as CMSF should be the benchmark here. So how will CMN play compared to CMSF? What Id like to see is more information on some of the following:
Cover and concealment
Foxholes, trenches and field fortifications
Infantry modelling and if possible more immersion by including 1-1 representation of formations (although I understand that this probably wont ever be happening)
Water, how it works and what it does over CMSFs marshes.
Spotting and the lethality of ww2 weapons as opposed to modern uber weapons.
Infantry hand to hand combat
Infantry close armoured assaults
Camouflage - stationery vehicles that might be camoflaged are they harder to spot.
Command delays for units as ww2 units should have some
Air support - how will this be handled
The list can go on and on and for me personally all of the above are much more fundamental to the games enjoyment and immersion than the very occasional time that I might drive something under a bridge. Not that having different types of bridges inst interesting though, because it definitely is, just not something I consider very significant over what currently in CMSF.
-
I have to admit I don't understand where you are coming from here. It's like you have blinders on or something, nobody is doing what you are claiming. It seems to me your response has very little to do with what Steve wrote in your quote - read it again? It really comes across like you are labelling and have an agenda. I don't know Steve apart from these boards, but at this point and time I can't help but feel sympathy for him.
Its simple really. Every few months someone mentions that certain posters at GS are being a bit negative. Someone here then tars all of GS with the same brush that its a CMSF negative site populated by doomsayers and those that want to see BF sink into the sea. All Im trying to counter this with is that this simply isnt true and yes I agree that 1 or 2 might be like that but not the majority.
I have no agenda here other than putting a wee bit perspective on it all and in actuality the way some guys here react to this trivia is actually reinforcing what a few GS posters have stated in the past.
GS means absolutely nothing to BF and so I think Steve is quite right to ignore it and have not visited for the last 7 months. Its only a forum......
-
The problem with GS is that its most active posters are the ones who have shown little interest in being objective. Or tolerant, or respectful, or humble, or pretty much anything necessary for having a reasonable discussion. The majority of people who do posses those qualities figure that out and don't participate. Which means it become a forum of mostly disaffected, axe grinders who value their personal agendas/vendettas over all else.
The primary problem with axe grinders is that they purposefully try to maintain the spotlight by cajoling, ridiculing, and brow beating people who (rightly) want the stage to be shared. Without moderation against such behavior it goes from bad to worse. The last time I was there was because someone here directed me to watch the usual suspects flame a new member for daring to be objective, though still critical of CM:SF. Some people even said "nice way to treat the new guy", but the damage was already done and I doubt the guy came back.
Believe it or not, if a person is told that there is a nugget of gold at the bottom of a pit of raw sewage they likely will decline to dive in on the off chance they might find it. That's why axe grinders are harmful. Especially axe grinders who deliberately misinform or mislead due to self-imposed ignorance. It's not just places like GS that this is true. Just look at the healthcare debate in the US for evidence of what axe grinders with agendas can do to the quality of the discussion.
I personally choose not to visit GS any more because there isn't anything there worth suffering through that I can't read here without having to suffer. It isn't worth squandering my limited time on this Earth sorting through to find something I probably would have seen here anyway. Especially because they use this Forum as a basis of their discussion topics more often than not.
Steve
And here we go again. labelling guys as axe grinders etc just because they dont agree with you or your personal agenda.
Now I agree that there are 1 perhaps 2 posters there that are truly disaffected for some reason or other, but the majority are as objective, and even perhaps more objective than a heck of a lot of the posters here.
Of course, you wouldnt know this as you havent visited the site since Feb 09 and of course this means that you havent a clue what actually gets discussed over there. No matter though as Im sure that not one thing that is ever discussed over there affects anything that happens here, and so why care either way.
But I definitely and absolutely dont agree with labelling anyone who ever posts at GS as disaffected maniacs who are plotting the destruction of BF and all it stands for.
Its been said far too many times, its only a bloody game. Although I do understand that for you its your living but less than 20 posters on a very obscure site at the arse end of the web shouldn't bother anyone here beyond being mildly interested in it.
-
Maybe instead of saying a 1 man show is slowing it down you guys will realize that there is far more than 1 person working on CMSF. Ever think maybe its not Charles slowing down the process but maybe "us" beta testers/scenario designers? Little more involved and the work while sometimes fun isnt always fun.
Oh Im not too bothered about it being slowed down really. I also understand that there are lots of guys involved, but the primary one has got to be Charles I think.
Its very hard to manage expectations after all.
Even though the second choice, Montgomery wouldn't have got the nod to command Britian's preeminent army in the major active theatre if he'd been a chump (or even an "incompetent douchebag")
Normandy question
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
As its now November 2009 and CM-Normandy was/is/could be supposedly ready before the Christmas holidays is it time for some more detail about it? So far, theres been a Tiger and some US vehicles as screenshots and a few words about how bridges will be modelled.
Any chance of
A. A little bit more information on how the game will look.
B. A wee bit more information on how the game will differ from CMSF (apart from the obvious).
C. Perhaps its own forum now that we are fast approaching launch day?