juan_gigante

It is because all of us high member number chaps have risen up and started posting our views as the old guard vow never to buy CM:SF and slow down. ¡Viva La Revolución!

Hey, you want real fun, try a QB with your pants off. Hot seat? Aww yeah.

QBs may be unrealistic, but for a quick throw down, they're great. In the right situation, a good QB can be about as much fun as it's possible to have with your pants on.

At least we have something. Do you remember the time before? Having 5 or so threads on the 1st page like "CMx2 Setting", "CMx2 & WWII", "How long until announcement?!?". I'd rather talk about modern desert warfare than go back there.

Well, I hope #4 can be Combat Mission - US is teh b0mb and jo0z suk0xors. It couldn't go over too much worse.

Well, my bookmark takes me straight to the CMx2/CM:SF forum, so I didn't notice anything different until I started looking at thread titles. Then I was confused. Then I went to the forum list and I saw what the forum was. Then, I saw "Official Announcement". Then, I knew. Oh, I knew.

Will it be distributed through regular stores and stuff? It seems that (with the magazine article and all) BFC is going for a little more publicity this time around (a move, BTW, that I applaud). But many casual people who wouldn't bother to buy it off the website would see it on the shelf at Best Buy and say "Oh! I remember that! It was the game that was supposed to be all realistic and stuff. I guess I'll pick it up!" Also, it is more convinient for me to walk over to Game Stop than to wait for the package to arrive via mail. And what is best for me is best for the world.

There are halftracks in the CMx1 games. Many troops rode in them, historically. Technically, the troops were supposed to dismount before they got shot at. Did they always do this? No. Would halftracks be in every battle that involved armored forces? No. Should BFC have included them? Yes. Will there be Stryker vehicles in every battle? No. Also, there won't be as many tank battles. Remember, combined-arms infantry. Combined-arms infantry. Combined-arms infantry. Repeat it. Become one with it.

I agree with pretty much everything gunnergoz says. Also, I wonder where those who have sworn not to buy CM:SF will post. Will they retreat to CMAK? Will they keep to the GF? Will they linger in the hated CM:SF forum? Or might they leave all together? Who knows...

I think that all those great CMx1 scenario designers had better get warmed up for some seriously complicated maps.

pWned, I believe you mean. We are on the Internet, after all.

Thank you fytinghellfish. I think some of the initial resistance to CM:SF came from WWII grogs who didn't want to be out of their element. For their sake, it is important that we acclimitize them to the modern world as soon as possible. Yes, it spelled it wrong. No, I won't look up how to spell it. Yes, this means the terrorists will win.

I think it would be kind of cool if the "combat additions" increased over time. If, at first, everything your boys are using is straight stock. Then, they trade a few things around, throw on some extra sheet metal as armor, etc, until by the end, the vehicles used are noticeably different, in appearance as in performance, than from the beginning. Which leads to another question that might have already been answered but I missed it - what is the length of the campaign. A week? A month? A year?

I'd like an on-off switch for the idiots. Sometimes, it's a barrel of fun. But it can get real old, real fast.

I think the upcoming modules would look like other NATO countries, other Arab countries/more Syrian stuff, then IDF. Many customers, I know, are jonesing to put their British/French/German soldiers in the battle.

News of the Stryker's limitations is quite common here in Washington, what with most of the Strykers being based out of Fort Lewis and all. I was wondering a little about this myself - how well the Stryker would do in the environment's we'd find in CM:SF. I assume that they will do a good job showing this, but I'll be interested to see how it might be demonstrated in game.

Next presidential election being in 2008 and the game being set in 2007, most likely not.

I'll bet that in the night campaign missions, the player is given fewer units to work with, to even that out. But I could see a Special Forces Infiltration mission as being really cool. Your guys have much longer line of sight, and having to avoid enemy sentries and stuff, looking for a spot to bypass the MLR and blowing something up, and then having to retreat back to friendly lines.

flamingknives - I keep wanting to call it Strike Force as well. RSColonel_131st - There will be modules for other nations, we've been told. So I guess you could wait for those. And I think the point is that the environment you are in and the tools you are given (in the campaign, that is) keep it from being a one-sided battle. As other people have said, in the other CM games people do Stuarts vs. Panthers, and despite the technological difference, that can still be a fun battle, if the scenario designer makes it so. So I think there is more pressure on the scenario designer, but a lot more cool things can be done. And besides, in urban terrain much of the advantages that US tanks receive are nullified. You can kill a T-72 at 4000 yards? Too bad that it is 250 yards away, and used buildings to get a sideshot on you. One thing I don't get is Europeans not wanting to play as Americans. In the CMx1 games, many people played nationalities other than their own. I'm American, and I play German almost exclusively. In CMBB, all of us Western Europeaners and Americans didn't even have the option of playing our "home side". So, now that it is a new engine we MUST HAVE OUR NATIVE LAND!!! Come on! BFC said long ago that initial modules for pretty much every setting would have Americans to start. Don't we remember all those brainstorms about the Normandy game? US vs. Germans to start, then Commonwealth, then deeper into France, so on and so forth. I kind of assumed that non-Americans 1. Didn't mind playing nationalities other than their own 2. Had steeled themselves for the very likely occurance that their country would not be in the initial release. Doesn't this make sense?

Ditto to what fytinghellfish said.

At least he didn't do it 19869 times.

Tom, I applaud your positive attitude. Even though you didn't go whole hog for CM:SF, you didn't make predictions of BFC's collapse, you didn't accuse BFC of abandoning their customers, you didn't do anything irritating. There are those who should learn from your example.

Peter Cairns put it well. And besides (to continue his metaphor), maybe you'll really enjoy your Gameboy. You don't really know until you play it. So I understand feeling a little disappointed, but those who are fortelling doom for BFC because of the setting are a little out of hand. And even saying flat-out "I won't buy it" is a little harsh.

I am kind of disappointed that some of the forum regulars would be so quick to cry that they won't buy it. It seems that most of those who are making positive comments have high member numbers.

I think that many people who are rejecting CM:SF solely based on the setting need to reserve judgement until the game (or demo) comes out. Hell, I wasn't a Eastern Front fan when I bought CMBB. But I knew that it would be a good game, so I got it anyways. It turns out that CMBB rocked pretty hard, and it spurred my own interest in the Ostfront, and now I would consider myself a East Front fan. Same story (but less so) with CMAK.