TheTris

There's a demo. Anyone who wanted to could sample the game before it was released. There's a forum, where the abundant shortfalls of the release version were discussed almost immediately after release. I got burnt, because I was way too keen to play what I was sure would be nine kinds of awesome. That's my fault. Noone elses.

Hey, If those with power and influence in the armies of the US and her allies currently in Iraq even started to think like you Finkster, I believe that we would already have lost. Tris

This game needs well designed scenarios. I want to feel outwitted and outplayed by the AI. So: What do people think about the potential of a scenario design competition? The parameters of the battle are set (such and such a US force vs such and such a Syrian force, in an attack against a village, for instance), and the scenarios are marked equally on two criteria: 1) Awesomeness of map 2) How well the AI plan decimated the players. For scenario designers, it can be like Wego with 1 hour long turns :-D

Thus far, my opinion is that this is an excellent engine, which is suffering from one of two problems: 1) Good scenarios are extremely hard to create or 2) There was a serious lack of quality control on the included scenarios. The good scenarios wrap me in a series of tactical decisions, present me with surprises and really involve me in what seems an excellent simulation. The bad scenarios make me seem a master of tactics, as I once again destroy a passive, unresponsive and stupid enemy force with minimal losses, achieve all my objectives and win total victory. It's a shame that some of the included scenarios are so lacklustre. I spent Friday night thinking "is it really this bad?" before I got a good thrashing on Saturday which cheered me up.

Moon: Yep - I agree with what you say 100%

Excellent - Thanks Moon. If it was nothing to do with Battlefront, I have no compunction about ordering from them. Which is good, because 2 weeks wait wouldn't have done my health any good MikeyD - I could take that analogy all sorts of places, but who said there was a problem with the pants? MajorCatastrophe - You mean using an approved distribution route which makes everyone involved a profit and gets the product to me efficiently would somehow be morally wrong?

So I pre-ordered from play.com, release date 27th July, everything good, been looking forwards to this game for years. Then I check, and find that the release date for play.com has been pushed back to 10th August. I'd like to know what's happening before I decide what to do: Is this a problem play.com have had, or is it a decision taken by Battlefront? I haven't seen any information on why this has happened, either from play.com or Battlefront. If someone from Battlefront can shed some light on the reasoning behind this decision, I'd be very grateful. It's funny how after waiting for years, 2 weeks can seem so painful :-( Tris

LTC West - Absolutely agree. My comments should be viewed as restricted to the immediate military situation of a meeting between the powers under discussion, and not the following and related pacification/regime change.

Steve, I wasn't happy with the rigour in suggesting that finding an American who thinks American's are great is as compelling evidence as finding that a senior American in charge of training a specific skill set suggesting American's are not great at that skill set. So now I'm going to agree with you - Chinese forces are not equal to American forces. It's crazy to suggest they are. China could not contemplate an invasion of America, for instance. I do believe that America would be defeated if it invaded China, but I'm not certain. But now I'm going to disagree again . Britain vs America would not be a battle of first rate opponents. One Platoon of Brits vs one of Americans would be, but the Brits do not have the resources or numbers to count as a first rate power. We're second rate, for sure. But we are good at pacification :-D

I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out perceived British historical blunders in relation to an article on how the American army is learning to deal with counter insurgency operations more effectively, Steve. The article seems well researched, and the feel of "The Brits did this better" comes from sources in the appropriate branch of the US army, among others. As a Brit reading it, I was struck by the comments on how now that American's are training more for this, their training involves hi tech pyrotechnics and acting lessons from Hollywood, whereas the British training is much lower budget. Does that make me happy? Well, I'd rather the British army had the high tech stuff too. But I'm pretty sure they don't. Americans just do that stuff better. To me, an American deputy chief of IO, and a retired American marine (not a country reknowned for it's lack of patriotism) both saying that America hasn't learnt these lessons as quickly as the British is enough to convince me it's probably true. Finally, if two of my men were captured by the police, not handed over to the correct authorities, and then given to a local militia group, and we managed to save them without losing a single guy, I'd be pretty happy. Casting this event as a terrible blunder is extremely disrespectful to guys who put their lives on the line and did, in this occasion at least, a fantastic job. Regardless of their nationality.

You need to play/watch/read more Science Fiction Pete! :-D A laser can move with the speed of light, sure. That doesn't place a limit on the speed with which you can track a laser across a surface. If I draw a laser pointer across something far enough away, I can track it across at much more than c. c is the limit for travel from the pointer to the end of the beam, not the limit for the end of the beam moving from one place to another. So there is no limit on the number of rotations a laser could do per second to cut a 1m circumference hole. but I'm not sure why this is relevant? I believe this then comes down to the cutting power of the laser, and the dispersion effect caused by material already displaced by the beam, which would have an attritional effect on the cutting power the longer the laser was focussed on the same surface.

Captain F: You are right. I'm not sure how it will help though. I seem unable to remember that particular grammar lesson, no matter how many times it is pointed out to me :-( Most unlikely crossover humour ever?: CM:SF MMORPG. I have new strategiez for dealing with Syrian ATGM launchers: Heres a graff 1 2 3 4 5 tank tank (profuse apologies as required

Whoa! We're throwing fallacy names around like tank shells! I asked you what you thought would give these arguments weight, and that's an "appeal to the people"? AND a Straw man? Note that I never said people disagreeing makes them invalid, but instead asked you what you thought gave them any weight. It seems to me that throwing "that's XYZ logical fallacy" rarely forms part of a useful discussion. Perhaps it's better to say "I'm not sure this conflicts with what I said, which was that..." in an attempt to clarify the argument, rather than just shout Strawman when someone attacks an argument you didn't make. The coherant version you made of the arguments was good though. Moderate language like "perhaps" was missing from many of the disappointed threads. I would say that the evidence that points away from what you fear is the dedicated audience that TacOps has, even when set in a modern setting, and Battlefield's record at producing games, coupled with their obvious personal enjoyment and investment in said games. Heck, BF even said that the first game was modern to help them get the engine they wanted to be able to deliver a whole range of settings. Now, either BF are lieing, or the setting choice was informed by their desire to make the game as good as possible.

Oh, and Nerd King - if I had better Paint-Fu I'd draw one of those things just for you. That's guarenteed awesomeness right there. If the 3rd Reich had built those instead of all those useless Pz IVs, the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

MMORPG: I think this is such a good idea I'm going to pretend it exists, even though it doesn't Anyone up for a raid this Friday? I need 40 lvl 50+ soldiers for a raid on Eagle's Nest. Have plenty of Tank Commanders, Fighter Aces, need more PBIs, Medics. Meet at 18:00, nr Carenten. Could get rare "Pershing" drop. Want to buy Elite level halftrack (with the black paintjob). Bored of travelling at normal speed, need boost from special mount. msg me. Dinger: I don't think it was a strawman, but I could be wrong: 1) From either side, military or FPS, what position do you think makes such suspicions valid, when so many people are claiming the other case? What do you think it would take to lend weight to these arguments when the nay-sayers are all contradicting each other, as well as Battlefront's stated intentions? 2) I doubt this too. But some people don't My point was that I wouldn't mind if the product was an accurate military simulation. 3) Sure, some commercial companies make some bad decisions. I'm not sure this conflicts with what I said, which was that Battlefront make their own decisions, and are probably a lot better informed than us about what will work. 4-5) It's the house that Battlefront built. There are "hardcore market" people who play modern. They will be very happy. Sure, I understand that people love CM. I can understand apprehensive. Also, BF have scored 3 from 3 so far, AND a WW2 title is already announced. So I can't understand abusive or alienated. 6) The subject is politically offensive to some people . Myself, I have no problem with it. Some people find playing as pixellated Nazis offensive. I don't.

Right. I've had enough. Time to make a few points: 1) Surely it is impossible for Battlefront to have sold out to both the military and twitch FPS gamers at the same time. Why are they being accused of both? Surely even they can't come up with a realistic tactical game that is quick easy and reflex based? "Oh no Tris, don't change the light settings. Oh dear - you're making it too light AND too dark at the same time. I hate you" 2) If Battlefront have developed this game as a realistic military simulator, with national armed forces as their prospective main client, and are still letting me play with the game...that rocks! I can't see why anyone would complain about that (unless perhaps you're worried there won't be any inaccuracies in equipment to grog on about? "Oh man, I can't believe they are making a game realistic enough that the real army wants to use it to train people. All the weapons systems will be more accurate, and they are still willing to sell me a copy. This sucks. I wanted hit points and levelling up. It could have been called 'World of Combat Mission'" 3) Battlefront are a commercial company. They make their own market decisions, and are almost certainly a damn sight better informed than you or I about what will succeed. "I can't believe the US military rejected my sketch of a new tank design. The OMGEmperorTiger II Crocodile would have totally rocked!" 4) Battlefront are also people, and on top of that people who have designed games hat pretty much all of us here love. How many bad Combat Mission games have their been? Out of the three? And yet some people still can't trust them at all? "Sorry Boss, but after 10 years I don't think I'll come in this month. Just don't trust you to actually pay me now I've been promoted." 5) You are not the only kid in the playground. There are many people interested in modern combat, just as there are many interested in WW2. Given that the second release is already slated for WW2, you have even less reason to complain if it seems like everyone is not obeying your each and every whim. "That's right Granny, I know the family reunion is supposed to be in Washington, but I'd rather it was in Chicago, and I'm not coming unless everyone fits in with what I want Well, that's my take on things. I'm not sure what characteristic of wargamers caused so many of the above reactions, but I don't like it. World of Combat Mission, however, would rock. In fact, Battlefront, I can't believe you are being so evil and not developing CMX2 as a MMORPG! You suck! Can't you see where the market is? I hate you for selling out to the hardcore tactical wargame crowd (trails into incoherence.)