luderbamsen

I seem to recall the synthetic aperture radar on the Predator being able to penetrate building materials under certain circumstances, and that was years back, so yeah.

So, the view through the CLU is black-and-white, not green-and-less-green?

@John Kettler & Earl Grey, Thanks. I also found out where I had seen it. It was indeed the Grossdeutchland book, which also came up with the aircraft turret explanation (multiple-source confirmation would be nice though, but it is indeed very little photographic evidence to work with). Those rings do indeed look like the FlaK38, though it certainly doesn't look like a standard mount. Was the FlaK38 used as turret armament in German aircraft?

Bump: So, can anyone tell me what this is then? http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/afv/slideshow/gallery/sdkfz251_hzoom.jpg

@Earl Grey, No, this was an autocannon 15 or 20mm (if it indeed was an MG151). That Kanonenwagen would also be nice though (though I tend to loose lightly armoured AT vechiles faster than you can say "this is not a tank!" ). EDIT: @Panzerfest, It's possible. The position looks about right, but it didn't have any shielding. I also don't seem to recall all the "stuff" at the base of the barrel. It was basically just a "clean" barrel sticking out of the mount, I think (It was a long time ago so my memory may be playing tricks on me). EDIT-EDIT: Hey! I found it! http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/afv/slideshow/gallery/sdkfz251_hzoom.jpg

If there is anyone who's a sucker for "near-future" equipment it's me, but unless BFC has some deeper inside-the-industry knowledge that I don't (certainly possible) it's still pretty much a coin toss what will eventually be deployed in the field. That doesn't mean I don't have the hots for the new tech though: Robotic vehicles, active defense, you name it.

Much of the negativity towards the M249 comes from the fact that many are so worn out they're practically falling apart (the article mentions this). When in full working condition, it's an excellent light machinegun. Not perfect, but very good, and much better than many alternatives. Large capacity magazines are notoriously unreliable. In Denmark, they tried introducing 100rd twin-dum C-mags to their C7A1 LSW's (Canadian M16 with longer barrel and bipod): The 100rd mags malfunctioned on average every 30 rounds, so they just went for standard 30rd mags.

I once saw a picture of an SdKfz 251 ausf. D with a single cannon in an open turret/mount - likely an MG151, possibly nicked from a downed aircraft. I can have please? Also, *cough*E-100*cough*

Night missions? Respect! I rarely bothered with the rocket launcher. Doesn't kill enough aliens to be worth it. The guided missile launcher is huge fun though. I often kept the autocannon in use well after more advanced weapons were availible becaue i liked it so much, but it is definately a useful weapon in the early missions (prefer HE myself). And as you say, grenades are your friend. They're definately the worst. Not only are the loads of aliens, but some of their most powerful species are there. Basically, you can do the Charge of the Light Brigade to get it over with before the aliens wreak too much havoc and take the losses that goes with it (if they don't wipe you out entirely). Me, I take it slow and let the aliens rampage. Not good for the score but for me it's better than loosing a full load of well trained soldiers. Just like crash sites, my tactic is to take it slow, reserve points for snapshots and keep the squad close enough for mutual cover. Once I've cleared the immediate area around the transport, I tend to go through the map systematically and only deviate if aliens pop up in the immediate vicinity. That way there is less chance that a lone alien will be hiding somewhere, forcing you to run all over the map to find him (and then he'll usually kill the guy who spots him, grrrr!). On my first games, I pulverized all the smaller UFO's when I got bigger weapons, and ran woefully short on resources as a result. The only real solution is to keep more interceptors than needed, and keep some armed with less powerful weapons. It's a real grind when you know you can just blast it out of the sky and be done with it in 30 seconds, but damn if you don't need those raw materials.

De nada . The first many missions I saved every time before taking a shot, and immediately after making a kill. Otherwise I would have played the first crash site mission over and over again. And Elmar's advice is pure gold: Do anything to make room for any Elerium you get. Build a new base and storage, sell other stuff even if you need it. Anything. Along the same lines: Try not to build things that require Elerium unless you really need them. Like hoolaman, my two toughest hurdles was the D-Day type slaughter off the ramp and surviving going through doors. For the first one, a tank is an excellent scout that gives your guy a chance to get off the ramp (rather like the Sherman DD's actually). However, try to limit the tank's kills to those aliens about to slaughter your troops. Tank stat's don't improve with kills. The best remedy against the Doors of Death is to make your own doors: Grenades and demolition charges work. And when you get flying armour and bigger guns, you can shoot your way through the roof. Unlike hoolaman, I go to great lengths to keep my troops alive. Not that I give a hoot about them, but their improved stats will come in handy later. Even if a mission is a great success, I sometimes reload the last bit so save that one trooper. But for crissake remember to check them all out when you get mind control tech! BTW: Those gomers with useless mind control stats are perfect for direct door assaults: Strip them of amour and all kit. Issue them a demolition charge or a grenade. Set the charge timer at 0. Send them through the door (keep your other guys at a distance); the alien shoots and kills the gomer, gomer drops charge, charge (with timer set at 0) goes off immediately, alien is vaporized. One more thing I'd forgotten (but someone on another forum hadn't): Avoid night missions like the plague. You'll be almost blind but the enemy won't. Try to time the deployment of your shuttle so it arrives in daylight. Alternatively, if it arrives shortly before dawn, have it fly to a waypoint nearby rather than the target itself. Then when the sun reaches the site you can redirect the transport to the target. Sometimes the target will dissapear before you can get to it in daylight. I generally choose to accept that defeat rather than fight in the dark. If you must fight in the dark, make sure all your guys have lots of flares. Also, terror sites take priority over crash sites. Terror sites have a very negative effect on your income and customer satisfaction, leading to countries bailing out and surrendering to the aliens.

As I recall, it came out in 1994. This was actually one of the first game reviews I ever read (in a local newpaper). It was trashed for it's lousy graphics and clunky gameplay Besides the manual, there are some good walkthroughs availible online. Be warned though: They include certain tips that are really exploits and makes winning a lot easier. That makes two of us I always felt I was behind the curve when playing, always trying to catch up. But my main problem was that I didn't have a plan; I just rolled with the punches. Careful planning helps. A lot. Plenty of tips online, but here are a few basic hints: Countries pay you to keep the aliens off their back, so place your first base(s) where the wealthy countries are. Intercepting UFO's has a lot in common with real-life air defense: You want to detect the UFO's early and catch them on the inbound; a small base with a radar allow you to spot them early and be ready to launch fighters. Aircraft with UFO technology are very expensive, so until late in the game you're better off upgrading your standard aircraft with bigger weapons - buy new planes when the UFO's start outrunning you. Keeping bases running smoothly is much like any other resource management game. There is no point in having a huge production factility if you don't have the raw materials to build stuff. Alien artifacts are a great source of income. You only need to keep one item to research it, so sell off any surplus, as it just takes up storage space. Be careful not to sell off raw materials though. You may not need them now, but you will later. If your workshops are not building weapons and gear for your troops, they should build stuff you can sell (profit=low cost, short production time and high price). Again, don't waste precious resources on this, you'll need them later. As your organisation grows, you won't be able to fit everything (research, production, aircraft, troops) into a single super-base. But try to concentrate your valuable installations on a few bases. These should recieve protection (anti aircraft and cloaking) first. You should also try to have a number of soldiers there at all times, in case of an alien raid. Lesser bases are more expendable. When on a crash/terror site, think tactical. Move your men out slowly and carefully (leapfrogging - moving half the team each turn - is good) and make sure they have overlapping arc's of fire (but don't bunch them up so a single explosive will kill them all). And (almost) always reserve turn points to shoot. Not too different from Combat Mission really. You don't have to worry about snatching artifacts or aliens for research until late in the game. Just kill anything in sight. However, towards the end you'll probably need to bring stun weapons to catch some specific alien species alive (you'll need all of them to complete the research tree). The stats of each soldier improve most when they make a kill. This can lead to a vicious circle where the same soldier has the best aiming stats, gets the kill and the stat improvment, so you end up with a handful of super soldiers and a big bunch of gomers. This is bad, so you should try and improve all troops equally. Give your best troops a regular rest and try to help the rookies to get the kill. Why? See below. As soon as you get mind control technology, test all your troops. You will find that some are completely useless at it, and usually they are some of your best warriors. Get rid of them, no matter how good their other stats are (you can sack them, but it's more fun to use them as suicide troops, armed only with a grenade or demolition charge). Otherwise, they will end up being mind-f...ed by the aliens and start killing their team mates (and one guy with top-notch stats can do an awful lot of damage). Use the save feature, a lot. Unless you enjoy starting over again and again, you should save many times during each mission until you get the hang of the basics. Standard save/load tricks apply, like saving just before a major decision (shoot, launch interceptors, start research) so you can reload if you mess up. Of course, you'll learn all of this eventually (and hopefully a lot quicker than me). But my best advice is really to make a plan and do your research before making a decision (like where to build, what to research, what to manufacture e.c.t.), rather than just go with gut-instinct. It really does make the game experience more enjoyable, and the taste of victory more sweet.

Good. I may fancy late-war stuff, but really anything from Zitadelle onwards is fine with me (I have an aversion against short-barreled Pz IV's and StuG III's). Also *cough*E-100 please*cough*

I still hear X-COM sound effects popping up in other games and movies from time to time (presumably taken from the same standard sound effect library).

It was just... perfect! The balance between resource management and turn-based tactical missions. The balance between user-friendliness and game depth. The extensive freedom in how to pursue the game. Just... perfect. Respectfully krise madsen

I'll bet a billion dollars and your house that I'm not I was tempted though. A few years back, I hit a really bad string of games. Never mind that the gameplay was lousy, but most games were buggy to the point of being unplayable. There was no interaction with the community and the developers either couldn't or wouldn't fix them. Patches solved nothing, if they appeared at all. I was at the point were I contemplated that if they weren't going to provide me with working games when I paid for them I didn't see any point in paying in the first place. It's very hard to keep the moral high ground when you're getting shafted over and over. Now I'm glad I didn't go down that road. Instead, I research as game as carefully as I can before I buy, including playing it at a gaming cafe if possible (which is rarely the case with the kind of niche games I prefer). I only go in blind when it's a developer I trust to fix any problems that might be, like BFC.

The only three hard facts we have are these: 1: At least for AAA "mainstream" titles, games sell much more on consoles than on PC 2: Pirated PC games are downloaded in huge numbers, far exceeding the number of games sold. 3: DRM does not prevent games from being cracked. It sometimes prevent games from being cracked on release day. We also have three assumptions: A: Most (or at least a lot) would buy a legit copy if a pirated one wasn't availible. B: DRM and other anti-piracy measures (like the recent legally/etically dubious blanket lawsuit in the UK by Codemasters, Atari and others) does not turn off legitimate buyers. C: DRM (such as StarForce and SecuRom, install limits, online verification required to play e.c.t.) prevent a significant number of gamers from pirating games. Yet most of the industry act based on these assumptions. Why couldn't EA's Moore say?: "We're just not selling enough PC version of Madden for it to be profitable. Has PC piracy something to do with that? Probably, but bottom line is we don't sell enough copies, so we're giving the PC version a rest" Why couldn't CryTek's Yerli say?: "It's a problem making a AAA game, pushing the technological envelope, like we did with Crysis when we only sell 1 million copies (or 1.5 million which is the latest number I heard). Has piracy something do do with it? Probably, since it was downloaded illegally 10 million times, but we can't know for sure of course. What we do know is that such games well very well on console, so we'll probably/certainly make a console version next time around. We can't support frontier tech development if we don't sell enough copies". Instead I hear "oh no, it's the pirates! it's the pirates! wah! wah!". Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! I'm sick and tired of hearing this over and over again, and I'm just fed up. Get a grip and start dealing with the proble. DRM isn't dealing with the problem. It's being stuck in the same rut. This course has already failed the music industry miserably so try something else for crying out loud. It would be easy to like Brad Wardell and Stardock because they're being nice to gamers and not pestering them with DRM. But not implementing DRM is just inaction. Any idiot can do that. What is actually great about Stardock (and BFC by extension since the're operating in a very similar fashion) is that they're doing this to sell more games and make more money. Instead of the usual head-up-your-butt pirate hunt, they look for solutions that make more money for them. I got the distinct impression he was annoying whiner and I wouldn't stand for it either, but all in the eye of the beholder I guess so fair enough The download manager point of the Gamer's Bill of Rights was about not having to go online and connect to the downloader every time you want to play a game (at the very least when playing single player). The restart ability (when downloading on an unreliable dialup connection) is a good point though and would IMO be a worthwhile addition, but hardly a dealbreaker.

Not that I want to turn this thread into a Stardock discussion, but I went looking for that thread (turns out there are several). The ones I found had the Stardock staff handle things pretty sensibly, moreso than I would have. I mean, the guy is basically blaming Stardock for him having a 26k connection (which is what you get when you live out in the middle of nowhere). I bet it doesn't say on the back of the box either that putting the disc in the dishwasher can make it unreadable. Sheesh, what a tool. Well, in the spirit of fairness (and also my original point) we don't really know. It doesn't really matter if the industry react as if piracy is the end of civilisation as we know it or a minor inconvenience. In both cases it is based on assumptions.

I think we're just talking past each other. Let's just agree that there are some pretty awful DRM schemes out there and yours isn't that bad. Now now, let's not get silly here. Nobody is arguing that piracy isn't a problem. I'm not even arguing that it isn't a big problem. What I'm arguing is that nobody knows how big the problem is. If "T-72" hadn't been pirated would you have sold 30 more copies? 3,000? 10,000? 30,000? *shrugs* minor issue anyway. All I meant was that if you think people are seriously playing your titles for about a year you're selling yourself short, that's all.

Note: About 2); According to Brad Wardell, "finished state" does not mean perfect, but that the game will actually play out of the box, not that it is perfect in every sense (which is obviously impossible). It's mainly aimed at games that simply don't work (missions won't load, you get stuck in a wall e.c.t.). Since I haven't played it, I'll let BFC and forum members argue if this applies to CMSF or not. Also, note that this Gamer's Bill of Rights applies to the games industry as a whole. Again, I feel a little guilty singling out BFC for the very reasons Moon mention below: Don't you see? This is perfect for BFC! If anything, the Gamer's Bill of Rights just highlight what a great company you are. I'm sure you know as well as I that there are some in the industry who fail at practically all ten. One thing though. 365 days? You're not giving your games the credit they deserve. Maybe you should talk to Brad Wardell (seriously, not a snide remark) about that.

I didn't really want to make this a discussion of BFC's DRM, but more on principle. I actually feel a little guilty picking on you, since clearly you're not the bad apple of the industry. But today, right now, I could probably download a pirated version of CMSF faster than I could pay for and download a legit version (or rather, someone who has actually visited a bit torrent site before could). Granted, BFC's DRM (from what I understand of it, as I haven't used it) is a far cry from such draconian measures as StarForce, regular online verification and whatnot, so it's really a bad example. Never mind on release day, how is your DRM preventing me from downloading CMSF today? Note that I'm not dismissing piracy as a problem. I remember (or rather I've read about) the crash of the video game market back in the 80's. Why? Because we started using writeable media (tape and disc) which meant that games could be copied, illegally. I doubt much has changed since then. OK, T-72 didn't sell. Piracy probably - or rather most likely - had something do do with it. But the thing is we don't really know. Look at two games like Crysis and Assassin's Creed. Both had very steep hardware requirements. Both had fairly tough DRM. Both had pirated copies coming out the wazoo from day one. Crysis sold one million copies. Assassins Creed sold less than 50,000 on the PC (or so a dev on the game told me). Yes, both titles undoubtedly sold less than they could have because of piracy, and no, we shouldn't expect the two games to have exactly equal sales. But twenty times[i/] as many? My point is that the industry is making some fairly important decisions based on assumptions.

Old news indeed. EA and CryTek wants a piece of the console pie. It would reflect positive on the two gentlemen if they fessed up and just admitted that they want to make games for consoles because they can sell many more copies that way. That's just good business practice and nobody should blame them for it. I'm quite frankly getting a bit tired of this pirate whinery. There are ways of tracking the number of pirated downloads. Some are fairly accurate, others are not. But nobody - and I mean absolutely nobody - has the faintest clue how many would have bought the game instead. Of course, pirates will tell you that nobody would really have bought the game anyway. And anti-pirates will tell you the opposite. But among those who actually try to find out (what I call "the intellectually honest"), the estimate (note, "estimate" not "solid number") varies between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 1 million. With a pirate download number for Crysis given at 10 million, that means that estimated loss in sales is between 1 million and 1000. Your DRM doesn't work. Your games are readily availible as pirate downloads*. The question is not how many additional sales you make because of DRM, because the answer is "zero". The real question is how many sales you loose because of annoying DRM. [edit]I also find it relevant to bring up this: The Gamer’s Bill of Rights 1) Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund. 2) Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. 3) Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release. 4) Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game. 5) Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer. 6) Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent. 7) Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. 8) Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. 9) Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play. 10) Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play. Courtesy of Stardock's Brad Wardell. Source: gamasutra.com, Link: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20027 [/edit] *) For the record, I do NOT pirate games myself, and I do NOT condone piracy. It's dishonest (not to mention outright criminal), and mooching off the work of developers and investment risk of publishers, as well as us honest gamers who pay for what we play. I'm not even comfortable saying it out loud like this, but it is a key point in the piracy/anti-piracy measures debate and besides those who pirate games undoubtedly know anyway.

Having just been revealed, I'll add Sky Gods (tactical first person shooter with HALO parachute insertions) to the list, while I wait for Ground Branch.

They can certainly be excellent fighters, and the article in fact does equal a Jordanian infantry company to an Israeli one, but once you go higher up the chain of command things begin to fall apart. Irregular and regular Arab forces are two entirely different things. For one thing, a formation like the Lebanese Hizbollah is not burdened by a hierachy whose primary objective is self-preservation. But nor do they have the ability to coordinate large scale operations in the manner of a regular military formation. Respectfully krise madsen

I still can't believe the DDG-1000 can't fire any Standard SAM's at all, but the deputy CNO did say so, even though it goes against every piece of info released so far. Who builds a 14,000t general purpose destroyer without a hefty air defense suite? Who? That would be like removing Tomahawks from the Tico's and Burkes because "it's an air defense platform, not a cruise missile platform". Pure insanity.

We seem to keep forgetting why the Stryker came about: A quick fix. The US Army transformation plans call for air mobile mechanised brigades. Air mobility require aircraft to be able to land on rough airstrips and that means C-130's and C-17's. Thus, there are strict limitations on size and weight of the armoured vehicles. As far as possible, the limitations on combat power (survivability, lethality e.c.t.) are to be negated through technology. The long-term solution is (so far) the Future Combat Systems. But there was also a requirement for something that could be fielded quickly, and this was the Stryker: It was (intended to be) the best airmobile mechanised equipment that could be developed and deployed within a short timeframe. As it were, the Stryker has proven quite capable in it's own right. That the airmobile element has been somewhat degraded (through addition of slat armour e.c.t.) is another story. But that still doesn't mean that it should be compared to the Bradley and the Abrams. The Stryker was never intended to replace/improve on the Bradley/Abrams. It was supposed to offer something different. As a side-note: The biggest hurdle for the airmobile armour concept is still USAF airlift capability, which is woefully inadequate for the job. Interestingly, some observers are quietly noting that if the USAF decides to aquire the necessary airlift capability, the best solution would be the Airbus A400...