luderbamsen
-
Posts
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by luderbamsen
-
-
Ground Branch. Not since Ghost Recon have anyone even attempted a tactical FPS like this one.
I would like to say Armed Assault 2 and Operation Flashpoint 2 as well. But I think ArmA2 will be just as unplayably clunky as the predecessors and OFP2 will be smooth but kill off realism.
X-COM. Aaah. TBH I don't think they'll ever make it. Short of a carbon-copy of the original, it's the easiest game in the world to screw up. At least all other attempts have done so.
-
How about
"Combat Mission: Tom Hanks Invades France".
or
"Combat Mission: French Chicks with Armpit Hair" (there was rationing, you know).
and my favorite
"Combat Mission: Oh bugger, that's an E-100, run for your lives!".
-
Hey, I bought CM for the eye candy, but stayed for the gameplay.
-
So, does this mean we'll get the E-100 then?
-
Me too. I even told some poor sod that M1A1's now sported a "fixed FLIR"Originally posted by John Kettler:Statisoris,
Thanks much for this! Remember being absolutely baffled by what I was seeing during OIF TV coverage in Baghdad, having never seen a thing on CITV installation on Marine M1A1s.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thankfully, no one "in the know" heard me make a fool of myself 
-
No. It's not fielded yet and the guesses as to when it will be are (last I checked) still uncertain.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />*Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
Steve </font>
-
Ah, I see, thanks. Well, that's pretty much what I (and I presume quite a lot of gamers too) want: No stupid and inconvenient DRM and revenue into the pockets of the developers (so they can make more content and more games).Originally posted by Moon:luderbamsen, first off to clarify - I was not specifically referring to any of the systems mentioned here. So it's just a general statement: some (many? most?) DRM systems that are out there are extremely restrictive (e.g. allowing you to run a game on one computer only) and/or intrusive (e.g. allowing the rights holder to revoke your license "from the outside") and/or plain inconvenient (e.g. requiring online connection any time you run the game). From the back end there are often severe limitations, too, e.g. regarding the cash flow, and/or they are simply too expensive, asking for a substantial % of the revenue.
Martin
Actually, I was under the impression that Impulse would pretty much offer exactly that: No unnecessary DRM and optimum revenue for independent developers. Then again, I'm hardly an expert on such matters (you don't have to answer, just letting you know in case you haven't checked out Impulse).
-
cool breeze,
Hint: As Normal Dude implied: Paragraphs are your friend.
OK, subject matter at hand: combatreform.com and Mike "Sparky" Sparks.
Seriously, the guy is a loon. A combination of ignorance, lack of common sense, and far too much time on his hands.
"Battleboxes"? It's not like using standard ISO containers to move military equipment is some sort of revolutionary secret. Everybody already does it, today. It's not a coincidence that a 20ft container will fit in a C-130.
Enhanced strategic mobility (i.e. getting troops and equipment to the theater of operations faster) is something that has very much been on the minds of military thinkers since before the end of the cold war.
In fact, the most prominent (and expensive) current US Army programme is the Future Combat Systems intended specifically to create an air portable mechanised force not unlike Sparky's "AirMech" ideas.
Ever since airborne/airmobile forces were used in earnest (i.e. during WW2), everyone have been acutely aware of their limitations, lacking both heavy weapons, armour protection and mechanised mobility. The helicopter, with its relatively limited lift capacity hasn't really changed that equasion.
Sparky and combatreform.com hasn't invented or discovered anything, just stated the blatantly obvious.
And of course, then the film snaps completely:
The only solution, according to Sparky, is the M113 "Gavin" *sigh* and ISO containers, and everyone even considering another solution are either stupid or gay, or both.
Somehow, because the M113 is already in the inventory, modifying always simple, quick and cheap, not matter how extensively it is redesigned. It can do anything you ask of it and it always works. If only reality was like that... (trust me, it isn't)
Sparky "argues" (in the most obscenely loose meaning of the term) how all other systems are hopelessly flawed. That is, if anything that he dislikes has failed or shown any flaws, just once, it is "conclusive, irrefutable evidence" (again, please don't confuse Sparky's rantings with reality) that it has never worked and never will.
Of course, such criteria does not apply to his own inventions: He comes up with a "modernisation programme" for the CH-54 Tarhe. When Sparky is the inventor, turning a half-a-century (yes, century) old chopper into a futuristic helicopter/fixed wing hybrid with superior performance is not a problem: Just add wings and turbofans. Hey, if he can glue together a plastic model, then doing it in real life should be a piece of cake, right? Again, if only real life was that simple...
Basically, Sparky isn't particularly knowledgeable, nor very bright (it sounds nicer than saying he's ignorant and stupid, but it's the same thing). Not knowing any better, he thinks his own ideas are brilliant and never before thought of. And not having the wits to distinguish between opinion and fact, any doubts raised about his ideas is considered a personal attack, and he responds in kind. Which leads to the (for him) natural conclusion that the fact that his ideas haven't been implemented by the US military ages ago is evidence of criminal negligence.
Or the short version: He's an idiot.
[ April 21, 2008, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]
-
Could you clarify what you mean by DRM "going too far" please?Originally posted by Moon:We believe that there is a limit as to what Digital Rights Management is about, and some of these systems (not necessarily those two mentioned here) basically go too far. That, too, is another reason why we want to remain in control.
Martin
-
OK what about Stardock's Impulse then?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We've thought about it, contacted them, waited ages for a response, discussed their response, did some fact checking of our own, thought about it some more and concluded it has some good features for sure, but from a business standpoint (and I'm not just talking about cost) it isn't right for us.
So the answer is yes we've thought about it, and no it's not the direction we want to go in.
Steve
-
The difference being that the Norwegians are on their 30's, 40's and 50's...Originally posted by Rankorian:Where as, in the US, on the coasts, we supervise our first teenagers ----faced drunken party.
Hire the boat, club....
Bring the champagne....
I guess there are some cultural differences.
Does that affect our inclination to pull the trigger?
-
Going by the Norwegians I see in Denmark, the only ability possessed by Norwegians is getting ****faced drunk and acting like teenagers having their first party without parental supervision.Originally posted by Duke d'Aquitaine:Hehe, very funny. I didn't realise norwegians possessed the ability to crack jokes that make sense outside Norway
-
I distinctly remember some being fitted on the Abrams tanks (on the "disc" where the commanders thermal imager is fitted on the M1A2) that entered Baghdad first (the day they tore down the Saddam statue). Though I have no idea if any are fitted on vechiles in Iraq today.Originally posted by MikeyD:You never ever ever see photos of this equipment fielded in Iraq
-
IBCT?Originally posted by Meach:IBCT would be nice too.
-
Interesting find undead, thanks.
Though I suspect BFC's internal sales figures may offer a more accurate picture
-
Troublemaker? Moi? :cool:Originally posted by Canada Guy:Thanks Steve.
I agree that no matter how you develop the point system, it will never be perfectly accurate. But that is OK with me.
As an example if a PzVI E (Late) is worth 222 points and you code the M4A1 at 141 I am happy with that. The M4A1 could be 130 or 135 or even 150 for all I care. What is important to me at the end of the day is that I can create my force within the alloted points that I have been given and have some sort of perceived balance that I can bring to the gaming table and use.
What will make me happy is the ability to craft the force into what I want and use it against an opponent that is doing the same within set limits (ie points). This is also useful for scenario building but I do not want an open concept where each side just picks whatever the heck they want. Every battle would end up being 50 King Tigers (or 50 E-100s) vs 50 IS-3s.
Any idea of how you would preceed with this or is it either too early to indicate or some thing you want to flesh out first before the jackels attack your ideas? (I am talking to you luderbamsen, you Danish troublemaker you
) I've never used the points system for anything but a rough estimate of balance. It didn't stop me from pitting a mixed Tiger II/Jagdtiger/Panther/Jagdpanther company against a 1941 Soviet tank regiment... ...or accidentally wipe out my own infantry with the Sturmtigers I used in Stalingrad (killed the unbuttoned Sturmtiger commanders too...)
Besides, I'm a patient man. I could wait for the E-100 to appear in the Brit WW2 module. In fact, it would nicely balance the Tortoise: Imagine doing a Operation Goodwood scenaro, and then do it again but replace one or two ordinary tanks with the Tortoise, just to see what difference it would have made. Just like you could give Wittman an E-100 for Villers-Bocage or use it at Capriqet...
-
You'd be right about thatOriginally posted by Kirq:Hi luderbamsen,
Thanks for answer. Do we know from BFS forums ?
Whats Your nick there cause I can't find Your curren nick amongst BFS forums members.But I must say that "msen" part of Your nick and Your location sounds familiar to me
I just prefer to keep my separate identities, well, separate With games like these, we should have plenty of gaming to keep us occupied for years. I think you'll find this forum to have plenty of helpful CM veterans able and willing to answer any questions you might have. Though some of them are a bit, for lack of a better word, stark raving mad, but that's all part of the charm of this place.
-
Hi KirqOriginally posted by Kirq:Thanks for quick answer Vulture. What can we expect in Marine Module ? New campaign ? new theatre of war ? New weapons and vehicles ?
I think you will find CM games very... ...NORG... ...well, sort of anyway...
AFAIK, the Marine Module will be US Marine gear on one side and additional equipment for the Syrians, probably some new terrain modules as well.
-
YankeeDog,
You're right, of course, but let's not open a can of worms here. I'd say let's just assume it would be as reliable as the Sturmtiger or Ferdinand, and otherwise just big, slow and mean.
Fytinghellfish,
If I thought there was even a remote chance of a "WW2-1946" scenario happening, I would have asked for it. Oh, and remind me never to bring you exiting news in person...
Steve,
I suspect you could actually sell a training module to Denmark. AFAIK (but going by memory so don't quote me on it) they implemented Steel Beasts for their tank sim (with mock-up turret).
[ April 10, 2008, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]
-
Minenhunde would be great! Running all over the place and blowing up sh.. erm, "stuff" left, right and center. Should make for some hilarious AAR'sOriginally posted by John Kettler:Secondbrooks,
Was just reading about mine dogs in Suvorov's SPETSNAZ. There's a picture of a mine dog and his handler just prior to Kursk, and Suvorov describes the much more powerful and fuzing sophisticated version in SPETSNAZ use circa 1980s. Two birds with one stone!
Regards,
John Kettler
Their inclusion would always be a secondary priority after the E-100, obviously...
-
Initially, no. Read into that what you willOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Normal Dude,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is all well and dandy, but will there be E-100s in it??!!
Steve [/QB]</font>
-
Steve,
Yeah, but what if it did?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I don't care one bit who is still playing each of the CMx1 games since by all rights nobody should. If there was more money in it for me then maybe I would care, but since there isn't I'd be a fool to. People playing a 5 year old game vs. a 7 year old game doesn't matter when the mortgage bill comes in the mailbox
Steve
What if you could (financially) tap into the fact that the CM games are played for years and years?
An example: Let's imagine by the time the last CM:SF title is out, the US Army puts Trophy active defenses on all its Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers (it could very well happen).
I'd very much like to have that Trophy system on my CM:SF vehicles. But if you do that for me, you're just being nice and throwing company money out the window.
But what if there was an economic reward? What if BFC could get paid through subscriptions and/or microtransactions to gradually and continuously add features and content to the games?
Stardock (Sins of a Solar Empire) thinks so, which is why they've announced the Impulse digital distribution system.
I highly recommend you read this interview with Stardock's Brad Wardell from gamasutra.com
Seriously, you need to read the interview. It could very well be the future of independent game development and could turn the longevity of CMx games into a source of income.
-
Thanks for the info. Now, about that E-100...Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Yes, as I've been saying for a few years now we will never, ever, in a billion years make another single game with the same scope as any of the CMx1 games. So the first of the WW2 games (the "Title" release) will be limited to US vs. German forces in the Normandy area. Additions to the game ("Modules") will expand upon the original forces.
Current planned 1st Module will focus on Commonwealth forces, though with a healthy dose of additional German forces and a smattering of more US stuff. Modules after that will expand the forces further to include most of everything that happened during the Summer and Fall of 1944. We will not be making the Bulge a "Module" because it requires an effort equal to the initial Normandy Title because of the weather, terrain, and unit changes that makeup that campaign (and later into the Spring).
Some may find this news to them, but it's nothing that couldn't be found on this Forum somewhere from some prior post of mine.
Steve
-
I'm with Steve on the scenarios: Eastern Front is just more interesting, not the least because you can make fairly realistic scenarios with a close to 1:1 division of forces, rather than the "5 Shermans vs. 1 Tiger" of the ETO.
Besides, I'm a weapons whore. I like late-war scenarios because they offer the biggest and coolest weapons. Most CMBB scenarios I played were 44-45 and rarely earlier than Zitadelle (Summer 43).
Regardless, I still want my E-100, thank you
Thankfully, no one "in the know" heard me make a fool of myself 
Games you're waiting on...
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
You know, I believe this game could handle the same treatment as Sid Meier's Pirates!: The exact same game with touched-up graphics. The publisher took a lot of flak for X-COM2 being the exact same game with new models and maps, but I thought it was great.