GSX

na mate, its not about colours at all. Im in no ones camp here, some people are far to quick to label people. All im saying is that theres an inbetween where most of us lie. Have I discussed CMSF negatively, I certainly have. Have I discussed it positively, yep that too. Ive seen it happen all too often that a few guys are dismissed as malcontent's or miscreants just because they dont follow 'the party line' of another site. On a CM discussion forum not owned by the company that makes the games I would expect guys to voice opinions that vary wildly from the norm here. And if this includes some that you dont personally agree with, then thats your problem and not mine. So please dont try and label me as showing any colours here just because I may think a little differently from you do. Cheers.......

Ok, enlighten me on just how mega significant being able to drive under a bridge will be in CM Normandy. And I'm not being a smart arse here, Im genuinely puzzled as to how it will significantly affect the game over say CMSF, where I dont have that option. I also think its time to compare CMN to CMSF and not CM-1, which although definitely doos not have water is in the same stable as CMN.

I though the Brit module took way longer than the Marine one? I remember it being announced before Xmas 2008 that the Brit module could be out before the end of the year but that it was being delayed till after the holidays (much like CMN is now), then it took until Jul 09 to see the Brit module? Was the marine module held up that long?

For F's sake guys. Is GS and its opinions that worth all the fuss? I happen to agree and disagree with a lot of what everyones saying about certain elements out there that only want to trash the game. However I have found that a lot of guys at GS actually know what they are talking about game mechanics wise. Also, they are talking CMSF at a CM forum and interestingly can discuss a lot of thing that would be considered negative here and locked, but at GS, because its not owned by BF, they can discuss. Theres a real lot of guys here that saw no wrong with a game that came out 2 years ago. Theres a few guys at GS who still trash it. Somewhere in between lie all the other guys who just like it as a good little wargame.

While all this ejaculation over a few bridges is fine and dandy its not really a significant bone is it? I can see now why Steve is not keen to open up a new forum or even give away any more info. Lets face it, bridges will be very insignificant in the game for a variety of reasons and will more than likely not be much different in practice from what happened in CM-1. Now Im not degrading the bridge chatter here its just a fact. Lets say I get a game set up, what am I going to do, yes, place my heavy tanks nearer the bridge that can take them, or my AT to cover it etc etc. The more important bones will affect the way the game plays much more than a bridge. Im thinking, proper foxholes, defensive works, trenches, hand to hand fighting, close armour assaults etc etc etc...... So being able to drive under a bridge, while being absolutely fantastic, doesn't really get my juices flowing.......

Is this where the one man show slows things down a wee bit? Cant be easy to try and stay on track with the games when there are more than one going on at a time. Kind of reinforces what Steve was saying in another thread about limited resources and not trying to overextend. Is CM2 overextending? is this why we are seeing these massive over runs on games and modules from those announced?

Some guys do it over at the WaW site, although I have tried it I never end up getting a good connection and you have to choose small games to get the most out of it.

June 2010 is my estimate. From the snippets I read here Im not even sure its been started yet let alone have a forum opened for it. I think the reason that they arent creating a new forum is that when they do the CMSF one will just about stop.

Yes. But it was RT with a fair few pauses in the bigger missions. This was back in the days when you chose how you were going to play it in the beginning and had no option swapping individual missions out.

Its a good little Op that one. To get the best out of it though its really good against another human if you can find one. Not very difficult Soviets Vs Germans though.

Well to play at WaW you have to join and then post at the open battlegrounds part of the site. Or if you joing the English site, post in the forum there. We also play CMSF and have an active community there too, we are even about to kick off another SF tourney. back to CMBB, wise choice and you will find plenty of opponents....

I think the original plan was before Xmas this year, which has slipped to sometime next year now. My prediction is around June 10, possibly to co-incide with the Normandy landing anniversary. Before then though we might have the CMSF NATO module.

Id like to add to this. CMSF IS played by more than a few at WaW and we have a sizeable and active ladder, though admitedly not as big as the CM-1 parts. However, the ladder exists, our guys there have even made a couple of results calculators so that if you wish you can use them to make the game more even for both sides (Blue casualties gain more Red points for example). We are also running another CMSF tournament, due to start mid September, this only requires the base game to play and is team based too. And finally, returning to DARs/AARs, WaW does have some and the facility to do one over there is better than any other sites (you have to try it to appreciate it). But we have suffered from too many patches, which due to the nature of the games meant that DARs would be left unfinished as games were abandoned mid-stream. In sum, we at WaW fully support CMSF more than any other site out there and to us it certainly may not be our most popular game, but neither is it dead. Cheers

If you had unlimited time all of the time, then wouldnt this just make winning that much easier? Then again, I suppose real life doesnt always have a time limit either, for me though it sort of defeats the purpose of the game.

This is the trouble with a lot of CMSF stuff. A lot of players seem to think that Hi Tech militaries can drop a thousand pound bomb 23 feet from their own forces. When in reality it just aint so. So in game, it shouldnt be so either. I think this problem with CMSF is not solely game or map size related but also a factor of knowledge. Joe average doesnt know much about modern warfare other than what he sees. This is often combat footage of smart weapons hitting a target etc. The reality is that it often takes a lot of effort to ensure that munitions get to the right place and sometimes things can go wrong and this is why you need to keep your guys as far back as possible. In real life one of the best CAS assets is the A-10, why, because it flies slower and the pilot has often more time to get it right, heck, they even fly with binos in the cockpit. Im always very careful with air support and never, repeat never give them an area target order. Always point targets.

I dont Peng and so never usually visit the threads. However, I just did and found a few surprises. 1. I still dont like it. 2. No one with under about 200 posts seems to go there. 3. The most interesting thing I got was that there are guys in there with literally 1000's of posts that Ive never heard of. Seemingly they only use the site to Peng. And no, I dont really object to it, they are simply observations on it. If it keeps all the guys that do it from spamming the site its a good thing.

Maybe the truck is higher than the soldiers and thus can see them gamewise. I fully understand that in RL it wouldnt be so but gamewise maybe it can be?

Same old story, Army blames RAF for lacking resources, RAF thinks Army are pants and doesnt understand what we do. probably a bit of both realy.

I'm in complete agreement with that. You should delete the Peng challenge threads about 20 minutes after you close them. They are absolutely useless and date back to a time that most guys know or care nothing about. In fact I know some guys who only come here to Peng and are disinterested in anything else.

This happens all the time, I can only imagine that the actual combat indoors is abstracted.

My bold, which is readily available info I presume? As it hasnt actually happened, the Tornado GR4 being the primary air asset in Aghanistan, then I dont think it could have last year. Reaching an operational capability in a Jet isnt the same as buying an extra bit of kit and slapping it on under a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement). There is a certain amount of working up for the aircrew etc which is why you wont see the Typhoon in action even this or next year I suspect. However,as you dont actually see the Jets in the game, any old plane can drop a bomb....

I'm sorry Detrich but this is just not true. The battle in Syria takes place in 2008. Some of the kit the Brits use, specifically the Typhoon aircraft were not available then. As someone else pointed out, where did the Syrians get all those T-90s from. If its fictitional anyway, why not have a bit of licence to make it a bit more interesting, within the bounds of reality.

Plenty of british TV progs tackle the issues, if not movies as such. This has been a case since the late 70's where a lot of the time the IRA were the enemy. Programmes like harry's game etc. There have been a few powerful dramas centered around Mid East terrorists/Pakistan etc. Although they tend to be a wee bit more accurate than Holywood some of them are pretty OTT when it comes to actual militaries and how they really operate. The military ethos is caution when there is no call for rapid thinking or action. If it takes 3 days to clear an IED, then so be it if there are no other reasons to do so. This would be very boring to the average movie audience.

Do I want an improved campaign system, the answer is a definite yes, I would like more control of my force comosition going into battles etc. I have no idea of the difficulties involved in this but other games seem to have solved it. Do I want a CMC type of game, actually I dont. I think CMC would have been interesting for a wee while and then forgotten about by me. CMC looked and felt like it was for about 30 specific types of game player. Its a lot to do for a very small number of people to be happy and to be quite honest here, I'd rather have infantry formations than a campaign system like CMC. Make the game more realistic before any of the other stuff is what I say.

I will tell you something that makes me laugh, well giggle a bit. Every time someone comes here and says, 'why not add more Syrian kit', someone else says, ah but the Syrians dont actually have that kit and wouldnt be using it then. Every time someone says,'Seriously, why would NATO be involved in a war with Syria', the reply is, 'Ah but this is a fictitional game and its set in an alternative reality that can be anything'. Somehow, the two dont sit well together. Syria cant have certain things because they dont have them, but the West can have everything because its a sci-fi game? Now I for one dont want Syrians armed with Rocket-sleds and robo-dogs, so Im not looking for any weapons that dont actually exist. Just a wee observation I thought I'd share.