GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
You only need to look at the British forces in Ireland (whether pre-republic or after that in Ulster) to realize that it doesn't even really have to be 'foreign' civilians for the troops to treat them like dirt. And UK is a first line western democracy...
Now that my friend is a fallacy of major proportions that I would have to write a novel to dispel.
If you know anything about the conflict in ireland then you would know that your statement is wrong.
Consider this. The British Forces entered NI initially to protect the catholic population. One documented incident was of a woman giving sandwiches to the troops....... filled with razor blades.
When I was there in the 80s and 90s people would give us bottles of spirits at New Year. God bless you they would say - but we poured them down the sink to avoid being poisoned.
So please dont think that a British member of the armed forces would have automatically treated someone as dirt.
This thread should really be closed as just like discussions about God or creation everyone is stuck in their own mindset and is unlikely to be moved by any argument.
In truth, both Israel and Hamas are wrong, one for supposing they can fire rockets and get away with it and the other for supposing that the Holocaust justifies any and every means of action.
-
Er, going hull down isnt hard. Position your vehicle below where you want it to be (the berm) and then hunt it to the top. In this scenario it will definitely stop hull down.
You can almost win this one without de-bussing any infantry, although you have more fun doing the real thing.
As I have played this campaign under almost every patch I have to say that it has always turned out the same. If your given an hour plus to complete a mission, then, take your time. In reality, it may take 6 hours, so use your heavy weapons and conserve your fleshy ones.
-
Oh, there's no problem with having different textures based on unit type. That's pretty much a freebie from a code standpoint. The problems are with the models themselves, not how they are colored (or coloured
). The cost to us to have different models is also OK provided that the one model is more or less generic for a particular force type. Where we run into problems is having various mixes of kit on the models. To put it into Normandy terms...Primary model
German Soldier with M43 uniform and standard rifleman's kit
Primary texture variant
German Soldier with M43 based camouflage ("dot" or "Peas-44" are common names) and standard rifleman's kit
Secondary model
German "panzer wrap" uniform for tanks (black)
Secondary texture variant
German "panzer wrap" uniform for other armored fighting vehicles and limited other uses (field gray)
So on and so forth are easy to do. Obviously we're interested in limiting the number of models, but as long a they used generally we don't have a problem with having a bunch. Same with texture variations.
Where we get into problems, with animations, is the following:
Primary model, rifleman
German Soldier with M43 uniform and standard rifleman's kit
Primary model, NCO
German Soldier with M43 uniform and SMG kit
Primary model, sniper
German Soldier with M43 uniform and G43 kit
Etc.
This is the same way the game works now. We wish to change it, but the problem is that changing the kit means we have to come up with a couple hundred animations which are specific to that kit. That's so the kit knows how to move along with the body. Very time consuming work, unfortunately. We have ideas on how to simplify the process, but we haven't had the time to implement it. It's on the list of possible things to do for Normandy, though it isn't that high up a priority.
Steve
I honestly wouldnt want it as any kind of priority. The look simply does not affect the gameplay, so what if a German NCO looks like a German Rifleman, I can imagine hes called Franz Lutz and comes from Magdeberg and is carrying photos of his kids all in my head. Much better to concentrate on the aspects of battle than mere asthetics. Im all for good graphics but not at any cost.
-
I put 2 Tanks hull down on the berm slopes, not on top. No matter what version, the result has always been the same, dead Syrians. I havent noticed any fixation on the Bunkers.
The other two Tanks race for the gap and sit on the highway for about 5 minutes pounding anything that moves, or is seen. Then, once the berm tanks have completed their work (possibly another 5 mins) they join the other 2 in the road.
Basically, the 4 tanks win this one. I wont spoil it for anyone but my Strykers probably dont move to drop of the Inf for a while yet and then I dont go through the front door. I end up unloading a platoon on the main objective and then doing some snazy top floor to bottom floor house clearing through the complex. If I have time, the tanks then enter from the rear of the bunkers and do some major rolling up supported by an MGS or two and a few empty Strykers.
-
It would be great if CMx2 manages to handle more variations in 3d models, like height and build for instance. Also, it would be nice to see multiple skins featured in Normandy with a variety of german camo uniforms for instance.
Im sure thatthere will be that variety of german Camo. CMBO had it, especially when guys modded it. Im not too bothered about height and build, that doesnt add to a wargame for me. CM Normandy should be about the US Vs the Germans for about 90 days, the same time period we have in SF now. For the vast majority of that time the US faced the German Army and Fallshirmaeger, so we should see German Paras and whatever Army uniforms they used then. Im not exactly shure that the German Army went totally for Camo rather than variations on Grey, remain to be corrected though. Certainly for the latter period of the Normandy battle the US would have faced some SS units and so we should see some SS camo patters there.
Again the modders out there and scenario designers can take us to other fronts and other battles which would very much involve different camos.
-
As far as I know the British and Marine modules are only available from the Battlefront website, however I believe you can order it as a CD/DVD from the website under 'mail' in the delivery options. As for a special pack including both U.S. Marines and British Forces, I don't know.
On a different note, I still can't wait to see how the Harrier GR9 will work without its cannon, for instance if it will be included on largely infantry maps as it will have only rockets, dumb bombs and Paveway II/III/Enhanced Paveway to use.
From what I've read the Officers on the ground didn't like the Harrier GR7 because it had no cannon and no accurate way of delivering the rockets on target, they had to rely on visually finding the target, coming around, relocating the target and then firing on it.
However, the GR9 seems to have improved with its Sniper ATP, but I'm still unsure how useful the GR9 will be without a cannon for very close air support, as I've needed on CM:SF quite a few times and found very useful.
Word on the street is that the Harrier is being phased out of combat for now. Maybe even being retired is a strong rumour. In fact some senior naval officer has actually resigned over these plans. On a simialar vein, the typhoon isnt yet dropping ordnance for real and still has a while to go to do so. This leaves the Tornado GR4 as the sole ground support weapon from about Apr 09.
-
Aaah, well that would explain it then. It does seem awfully far away to be useful.
Thanks everyone!
It would be useful if you were on the assault with an OMG in Germany in 1992! Its a case of something that exists for one reason being coded as another thing (offensive smoke being treated as defensive as mentioned above).
The Soviets doctrine was offensive and so all of their energies were put into that medium.
-
This one is good for the sound and a quick tip on how to make a smokescreen.
-
The look of the men is a definite interest for me. Im not expecting them too look as individual as they actually are on Ops, often no jacket is worn under the Body Armour for example, just a tee shirt. However I would expect them to look representative of a Brit soldier, hopefully with PRR etc.
We shall see soon I suppose.
-
For the same reason formations are not likely to be implemented. And I don't see them as too essential, for the blue side at least. Just split your squads.
I disagree. Formations are what makes a military feel right. Tanks come in platoons with a leader. Id love to be able to set realistic formations for my troops and armour.
-
To answer my own question: it supports more than two players in multiplayer mode.
Re. Close Combat: Modern Tactics: I own 3 out of 5 CC games and did not even know this one existed. The PR does not seem to be awfully good.
Best regards,
Thomm
Its not all that often that a military Sim makes a popular wargame, too many things that the military want, the public doesnt.
-
Right now it is simply a 3D game with modern weapons and equipment.
There are no formations, tactics, SOP's etc... that an instructor can use to train with.
No way to teach Army doctrine, which is what every training aid must do.
Couldnt agree more, doctrine drives tactics.
The mere lack of platoon formations breaks it for me as a viable training tool right now, and there are a lot of other methods of training that work too.
-
Whose average training? The US I suppose. What about UK Marines then, have the toughest basic training of any infantry unit in the world. Add to that a fair bit of combat experience and they in the elite box all the time. Even most of the UK Army will almost certainly be crack under that definition. The Brit module should be interesting then.
-
Your not, your going to go out and train for warfare, do the drills, get to know your men, get fit etc.if you're in Alaska in the middle of January, how are you going to go out into the field and practice for desert warfareAt the Platoon level soldering is about the act.
I understand where your coming from but I think that SF is not the right training aid right now for anything other than the basics..... however, if it did have Coplay its would be a much better tool for individual force commanders I totally agree there.
Argument over for me I think.
-
Sorry for the dig, but your way of thinking is the sort of problem our military advocates have run into. And that is current training opportunities are adequate and that a "game" isn't really of value, therefore something like CM doesn't have much to offer. We feel very confident, based on what military trainers have told us, that this is not so. And based on what others have added to this thread, I think it's pretty clear that the position you've taken is too... inflexible, I guess is a better word. Or perhaps unrealistic in terms of what budgets, local training grounds, time, opportunity to do full combined arms, etc. actually are capable of providing. Again, we have zero disagreement that CM is not a substitute for anything the military is already doing, rather it is something that can enhance what is already going on. And enhance it cheaply.
The position Ive taken is merely from experience, the same experience Im sure that a lot of those military guys that you talk about have taken.
I can see why a classroom exercise using CM may be beneficial to junior leaders and even perhaps the squaddies. But at that level its usually a lot better to get on the ground and carry out your basic infantry drills, learn your trade and do the stuff that makes you a better soldier.
Now if all the things you allude to were in it, it would be a better experience, Tankers can control tanks and infantry can control infantry.
So we seem to be discussing two separate things right now, one is the current SF and the other is an ideal SF with CoPlay etc. Im sure Im just a dinosaur and the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
-
So you either think that the Brits are going to be different or you don't. At the end of the day the Brits will bring a whole lot of difference - the accents are window dressing - if that is a deal breaker then I am sorry but to dismiss the kit just destroys me ...it's different and that is the point!!!
I will get the brit Mod for the new skins but am under no illusions that doing the same stuff as I do with the US Army will get exactly the same results.
Brits use almost the same weaponry as the US, have similar sized squads etc, vehicles though different equate to roughly the same. Perhaps the Challenger will be better than the Abrahams? It does have a better cross country capability and better armour, but the exact details are classified. Perhaps thats an inherint problem with trying to model modern warfare, it a lot of gueswork as Im sure the various militaries arent going to tell BF all of their secrets...
-
I still think that as it stand right now SF doesnt really enhance the training of the units that Sf is focused on, thats basically platoon combat. I get it that you can play the game in different terrain (desert) form where your unit may be stationed.
But the bottom line is that if your guys can do the basics in 12 foot of snow well, then they are going to be just as good in a flat Desert or other type of terrain. If you already train in the harshest conditions and do the basics well, then your going to find it easier when you get to the less difficult terrain.
Plus before you deploy you will get more specific training tailored to the role that you will carry out.
As it stands right now SF wont really teach you much about combined arms co-operation. Im not saying that it cant or wont in the future, just that right now it does not provide more than a basic framework.
For starters it may have 1-1 graphic representation but it does not have 1-1 control over the infantry, which means individual soldiers seem to be treated just the same as CM-1, except I can see them.
-
It isn't like BFC is rolling around in piles of money. Who says they even have the money for such a long development cycle? Years from now the budget might be frozen and they'll be hanging onto a product that they can't sell. Maybe after the product is done there is just one critical feature missing that contacts had said would be important, suddenly was. There are a lot of things that could happen between today and by the time the game is finished.
Their current approach makes a lot more sense for a small developer. Continually improve the engine through gradual releases. They can keep going back to the military with improved versions and say 'do you see value in this yet?' If they do they can have a talk, if not BFC still has a viable business.
If they went straight for military they would be putting all their eggs in one basket. They took enough of a risk trying to make money off of selling wargames.
Edit: My reply was to GSX but I no longer see the relevant post here.
Sorry I realised what I was saying was pretty much what you stated there before you stated it, you were too quick!
-
Those items couldn't have been 'dropped' from CMx2 because they were never in. The game engine is a total rewrite from a ground up - its a different game. You could make a list 3 times as long of features in CMx2 that had been 'dropped' from CMx1 (Why did CMx1 drop 1:1 unit representation?). If Charles had taken the time to code-up everything including the kitchen sink for CMx2 we'd be probably getting the initial v1.0 release about next week!
Actually, theres a couple of things wrong with your statement there.
1. Things that were in CM-1 seem to have been put back in. The use of the spacebar to bring up unit options was the old right click in CM-1 brought into CM-2 when guys asked for a similar thing. As has WEGO and the Blue Bar recent additions.
2. Perhaps if they had taken the time to code it up as you say and it was released next week, it wouldn't have been the initial flop and failure that it was when it was released in beta form last year.
Still its good enough to play now though.
-
I think Steve has said else that he's more than willing to do all that and more. All he needs is for the DoD to give him a check for several million dollars to hire a bunch more programmers, with a guaranteee of a fat Pentagon contract at the end.
Are you honestly saying that the reason a tank cannot cross a 3 foot wall is that they cant afford to code it in?
-
Double post.
-
SlapHappy,
If you've played the Marines Module and feel that has nothing new to offer, then I think the answer is that the Brits and other Euro forces probably won't add much to the game for you. If you have played the Marines version and get a different feeling from them, then for sure the Brits and other Europeans will feel different all on their own. Even more so, I suspect, since there are so many new weapons, vehicles, formations, voices, etc. to experience compared to the differences between US Army and US Marines.
And of course there is also Blue vs. Blue, though that's a sort of side benefit and not a primary one in our opinion.
Steve
Apart from the Blue Vs Blue I honestly dont think any new Mod will bring anything new to the gameplay (voices and vehicles aside). Im sure a UK platoon will just be a US platoon with new skins. Although the Marines did bring in some new aspects with Trucks and Amphibs and bigger squads. But the core gameplay will remain the same as it did from the Army to the Marines. Perhaps the UK will have onboard mortars?
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing though as I plan my next tournament in SF to be between the US and Brits. I will have to think of a pretty extreme Sci Fi situation for it to take place in the ME but it should be fun though!
-
I think the prob is that GSX is(was) unaware of the need to setup the movement path then unselect the unit and select the individual waypoints. Then give target orders from them instead of from the origonal unit selection.
Aha! Yes thats it. Thanks guys I shall try this method didnt realise I had to deselect the unit first.
-
ASL Veteran.
I hear you there.... I remember running about in Germany too back in the 80's and early 90's. Ah the good old days, when you knew your enemy and trained for Armageddon!
But I digress. I actually agree with what your saying except that if you gave CM to some squaddies they probably would benefit from it. I also fully understand that US and UK infantry training and ethos is very different (ive served for almost 10 of my 25 years with US forces in various places).
And its not different in the Uk, we are actually more limited than you are for large exercises (for big ones we go to BATUS in Canada).
My whole point is and was that SF as it is right now wouldnt be a training tool worth investing money in as it doesnt actually do anything other than highlight the basics. And you can do those basics in a football field if you want. Why waste any time indoors when your guys can run around getting fit doing them?
I wholeheartedy agree that higher commander can do the thinking stuff in a coplay situation, get a tanker to command the tanks and a JTAC to do air etc. But SF doesnt have coplay so its a rather moot point.
). The cost to us to have different models is also OK provided that the one model is more or less generic for a particular force type. Where we run into problems is having various mixes of kit on the models. To put it into Normandy terms...
The Blue Bar Returns!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Thats not to say that major projects are not total FUBAR, I only have to think Nimrod AWACS there....