luderbamsen

Great! Just what I wanted (and expected) to hear. ...as opposed to "eh, spiral what?"... I'm not asking for perfection here. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the Army invests in new, flower-motif upholstery for Stryker seating..., just the important ones (weapons, sensors and whatnot). I assume upgrades to C4IR is a real bitch, coding-wise eh?

A question to BFC: Part of the US Army FCS programme is "spiral development", i.e. new technologies will be issued to the troops as they become availible. And no, I'm not asking for an FCS module (damn thing probably won't work, the Army can't afford it anyway and even if, the USAF can't take it anywhere). But we might see new gadgets appear from time to time, some may be unimportant gaming-wise, but some may have considerable impact. So, what will BFC do? Patches? Ignore it? What?

Now we're cookin'! You know, Steve, there are some pretty serious issues being raised here, gaming-wise. Is CM:SF a Stryker-sim or a modern military sim, i.e. can you "simply" replace Strykers with Abrams and Bradleys without taking anything away from the game? Does CM:SF address the equal vs. lobsided battle scenarios (i.e. win at any cost against equal opponent vs. win with few/no losses against much weaker opponent)?

Well, if you want to talk about bad choices in SAW/LSW, look no further than the Danish Army. Recently, they introduced a new weapon to bridge the gap between their Diemaco C7 carbines and their MG42/59 (very early MG3 in 7.62x51mm NATO). What did they choose: The Diemaco LSW version of the C7. That's right: ELCAN sight, fixed (albeit long and heavy) barrel and closed bolt. Standard 30rd mags are used (the LSW gunner is issued a bandoleer with extra mags) wich is probably a good thing, since something like the 100rd C-MAG would probably cause serious overheating. How on earth a NATO army in the 21st century can choose such a weapon, despite massive evidence suggesting the folly of such a decision (they needed look no further than the Brit L86 LSW) is beyond me. Maybe the Army Staff policy on alcohol and prescription drugs is more liberal than I suspected...

I must say I find this negative attitude towards SF somewhat odd. Why is it such a terrible thing that not every CM game is WW2? Why is it so bad that US forces are included, even at the expense of, say, UK forces? Why is it a tragedy that CMx2 will add real-time play when WeGo is still included? Don't get me wrong: I very much enjoy the WW2 setting, and I think the WeGo system is brilliant (and for serious wargaming undoubtedly vastly superior to anything else, including real-time). I'm not American, nor am I particular pro-American (at least not in the "flagwaving patriotic" sense), but I really don't have any problem with the virtual soldiers under my command being American, and I strongly doubt BFC will stoop to representing US forces as infallable "patriotic heroes" and their Syrian opposition as "terrorist-supporting axis of evil". In short, I just like to shoot people and blow stuff up, game-wise, and few games does that better than the CM series. So lighten up people and enjoy the fact that there is at least one company that is dedicated to making decent wargames. Not real comfy with that space-lobster idea, though...

I think the time has come for admins to padlock this forum. An perhaps a friendly tap on the shoulders of certain posters as well. Oh, and Hi Mom.

Clusters The US Army's beef with bullpup weapons is indeed the fact that you cannot fire it from either shoulder without at least field-stripping it. The only weapon to manage this so far is the FN F2000 (with an innovative ejection system for spent casings) and the experimental Steyr ACR (wich used bottom ejection).

Geez! And I thought I was the only one left who felt this way. Brethren: I'm home! (Microprose games, now THOSE were the days!) Yes we are all jaded gamers (i.e. sad old farts who complain that everything was better in the good old days). And yes, there were many horrible games in the old days as well. Surely, new games aren't as innovative as they were, but then again, many of these innovations have already been made. However, none of this changes the fact that something has definately changed in the world of game development. Case in point: Try playing the old Wolfenstein (for the younger readers, this was the very first 3D first person shooter) and the latest Quake IV. Sure, Q4 is much prettier, you can now aim up and down and do other things. But that doesn't change the fact that Q4 doesn't even trust you to find your own way through the map. Many times, there's even a soldier pointing in the direction you're supposed to run (even though there isn't really any choice anyway). Heaven forbid you got lost! I'm sure the community members could come up with loads of other examples from other genres. Why is this? Computer games has become big business. Very big. The cottage industry of developers and publishers that did it for fun as much as for anything else is largely gone (excluding BFC and a few others) and replaced by big corporations. Thus, computer games are going the same way as other mass media, notably movies: A big Hollywood star can sell a movie, "it's very good, really" can't. Likewise, fancy graphics is a good selling argument while innovative gameplay rarely is. And like it or not, we ARE a dying breed (or at least getting quite rare). I have lots of friends who play computer games all the time, but they're not really interested in investing any intellectual effort into it. Their idea of a mentally taxing game is something like Battlefield 2 or Warcraft III. And it's probably going to get worse: I recently saw an interview with a lead level designer of developer IO Interactive (makers of the Hitman series): He argued that there was plenty of ideas and creative spirit in the developer community, but that it was being stifled by publishers, who have their eyes firmly fixed on customer segments, market shares and potential sales and profits, and very little else. As with TV and movies, the product that panders to the lowest common denominator usually has the greatest mass appeal and therefore the biggest potential profit. And it's probably going to get worse. Rumor has it that the big media corporations are now moving into the games publishing business, simply because that's where the big money are. I strongly doubt they'll put their investments into "quirky little games" like those made by BFC and others like them. So what can we do about it? Not much I'm afraid, exept to put your money where your mouth is. I stumbled into CMBB and liked it (obviously). Naturally, I got CMAK the second it hit the stores. I also got CMBO wich took forever to track down and cost far too much for it's age, but I bought it anyway. Also, if you find a good game, spread the word among friends and family and on appropriate forums. Chances are the developers/publishers haven't spent much money on marketing and few people actually know the game exists. Who knows, if BFC can show some impressive sales figures, perhaps other developers and publishers will take notice. Especially those who like BFC make games for fun rather than profit.

Interesting thread. However, I feel that the whole "Abrams vs. Stryker" debate (not particular to this thread) is based on a fundamentally flawed premise: That the two vechiles are directly comparable. The Stryker was never intended as a replacement for the Abrams. Instead, it was (and is) intended as a way of improving strategic mobility (being transportable by air rather than by sea) of US mechanized forces, and be implemented quickly, while a more permanent solution (i.e. the Future Combat System) is being developed. In doing so, it necessarily has to be smaller and lighter than the Abrams/Bradley combo (unless the USAF were to massively expand their fleet of C-5/C-17 aircraft to carry it). At the same time, it must of course be affordable in terms of aquisition costs as well as lifecycle expenses. Therefore, the "proper" question when discussing the pros and cons of the Stryker should be: "Given the requirements, does the Stryker provide the best (affordable) solution?"