luderbamsen

Am I missing something here? What IS the idea? Naked Venezuelan chicks atop the tanks to distract the missileers? Little goblins with butterfly nets catching the missiles? What?

There are pros and cons to everything, this issue included. For one thing, CM isn't your run-of-the-mill game and there is an awful lot more to accurately modeling a particular unit than damage value, hitpoints and rate of fire. Bickering aside, this thread is an example of a drawback. I'd like Aussie troops too and reskinned troops and vehicles just don't cut it. I appreciate the visual quality of skin mods but it doesn't really change anything. But as always, I'm mainly interested in content. I want content. I want authenticity and high quality. I'm not going to bother with something that isn't BFC quality (or at least very close to it) just because it's free and the person(s) who made it aren't proffessionals. I don't give a hoot if it's made by BFC, modders or some 3rd party commercial entity. I just want plenty of good content on a regular basis and I'm more than willing to pay for it. BFC would undoubtedly love to produce tons of content for me, but profitability is an obvious issue (and even if it was profitable, adding numerous members to the staff would have problems all of their own). Basically, I'm not saying "Give me mods" but rather "give me content". How and by whom doesn't matter to me.

Yup. It was/is, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. And if ammo weight is to be reduced (a key parameter) then brass cartridges will have to go anyway. A rarely debated, but very important, issue is cost: Even if the vaunted XM29 OICW had worked (which it didn't), it probably wouldn't have been put into production, simply because it was too expensive for the (relatively modest) increased lethality it provided the individual soldier. Oh, and just to go completely crazy with future firearms tech: The guided (small) projectile: It's fired from an ordinary gun and looks like an ordinary projectile, except the tip can move in any direction (via small "artificial muscle" actuators) and will probably be controlled via semi-active laser guidance (like a laser-guided bomb). Very nice for long range shooting, taking wind and (to an extent) elevation out of the equasion. The tech can be cramped into projectiles at least as small as .50 cal. (12.7mm), and otherwise the only parameter is cost, usefulness and if the tech will survive the G-forces of that particular weapon. Taking this concept to the extreme, imagine soldier with a helmet-mounted laser designator, boresighted to his helmet-mounted sight. When he spots an enemy he just looks at him (centering the helmet crosshairs on the target) and fires one or more rounds in the general direction of the target. No need to take proper aim, as the bullet(s) will automatically home in on the laser spot. The "rifle" could even be mounted on the arm since you don't need to bring it up to your eyes to align any sights. I can't help wondering if warfare 60 years from now will be even more amazing and unbelieveable to us than current technology is to WW2 vets.

I wanted to say something really clever and witty, but: A) I'm stupid and not good with 'em words n' stuff, like. I lost track of who's being and idiot and who's rightfully offended. So I'll just settle for a Hi Mom PS: Quite a few posters in this thread better be bloody grateful I'm not the moderator around here...

Absolutely! I've done quite a bit of research into caseless ammo recently. The ultimate is to combine the benefits of a bullpup with caseless. Meaning, the trigger assembly is forward of the breach, the ammo is caseless. This gives you plenty of ammo at the ready, excellent barrel:total length ratio, and balance. The G-11 shows the benefits of this type of weapon once the kinks are worked out of it. Steve </font>

If I were to venture an uneducated guess, I'd say that the future of the bullpup rifle as a general issue military small arm depend very much on the ammunition. Caseless, semi-combustible and case-telescoped ammunition, coupled with a different (i.e. not the usual reciprocating bolt) action and firing a high velocity/low weight (5.56x45mm-ish) projectile (where barrel length is a major issue) is probably where we'll end up. Eventually. Speciality weapons (sniper rifles e.c.t) is a different ballgame, of course. I wouldn't be surprised if it coincided with mission-programmable airbursting munitions (in 20-40mm caliber) and associated weapons being issued.

After the Falklands War, one conclusion most agreed upon was the need for troops to carry more ammo. Which meant switching their 7.62x51mm SLR's for 5.56x45mm L85A1's. If anything, accuracy actually improved because of the inherent accuracy of the L85A1 and the standard issue 4x SUSAT sight. Apart from the inherent issues with a bullpup rifle, the problems were mainly caused by poor design and shoddy workmanship (as flamingknives mentioned). Basically, there is no going back to a 7.62x51mm caliber general issue small arm: Weapon and ammo is too big and too heavy. It still has merits in particular scenarios or as specialist weaponry though.

Personally, I'd love a 80's Fulda Gap (or Red Storm Rising) scenario. But according to BFC it ain't gonna happen. They've looked at gameplay issues as well as market appeal and figured out a WW3 scenario wouldn't fly.

I guess I wasn't quite clear. The people I was talking about largely are the SS fanboys and their ilk, who play a wargame in hopes of getting the fantasies about some mythical army or weapon validated, they get a vicarious thrill about seeing their object of love behave in an "ueber" fashion on the computer screen. That has nothing to do with watching stuff blow up. That is a healthy instinct of most human males traced straight back to man's hard-wired fascination with fire. Except when it's my CM vehicles, I love seeing stuff explode on a computer screen. </font>

I'm not going to argue BFC's stance on modding (the decision is final so discussing it is pointless). However, I would like to repeat my mantra: I want quality content, lots of it and at regular intervals. And I want to toy with that content (in terms of who's going to fight who) as I see fit. I want to pit King Tigers against 1941 vintage BT-5's as I did in CMBO. Heck, I even want Syrian paratroopers backed by US Abrams tanks up against a Stryker platoon if that's what tickles my fancy. I don't care if it's made by modders, BFC or some 3rd party contractor, as long as it is well made and plentiful. And I'm willing to pay for it.

One of the better explanations of the issue at hand I've seen to date. WW2 does particularly well in allowing for an interesting "game" setup. But apart from that you can more or less count me among the "mental masturbators". Though the game would be wholly unattractive without the realistic and tactical elements, I mainly love to blow "stuff" up and shoot people. I absolutely love the WW2 setting, generally the later in the war the better. And I love CMx1 for its 3D representation, the WeGo system and the anal attention to detail and authenticity (notably a dozen or more Soviet tanks I'd never heard of). Same goes for other wargames I rank as high as CM. But I don't love it particularly for the WW2 setting. Personally, I prefer scenarios from the industrial age. Give me modern warfare, or even "Combat Mission 2025", Fulda Gap, Korean War, whatever. And hey, throw in a Waterloo or US Civil War, plus Agincourt and Romans vs. Gauls, just for the fun of it. The period does not determine if I like the game or not, the game/gameplay does. PS: And everybody please take note of the quote button, and use it. Thank you

Hi everyone This forum has a quote function, located to the right on the line above each post. Please use it. Thank you PS: 1944? StG44's, Panzerfausts/-schrecks, Panthers, T-34/85's, JS-2's. Yeah, I'm game

Gentlemen, we seem to be mixing things up a bit, like. The Soviet doctrine that I assume is the one we're talking about here was for conventional force-on-force engagements, generally on a large scale (the Soviets were always keen on quantity). As such, it only has relevance in force-on-force engagements (like the beloved Fulda Gap scenario). Debating this doctrine in an Afghanistan context is essentially pointless, as is debating current US Army force-on-force prowess in an assymetric/counter insurgency scenario like Iraq or Afghanistan.

*sigh* Yes, these initial tests do indeed look interesting, and I'm not surprised that the Army sent a representative to have a look. If it works (i.e. cheap and effective armor) I'll be the first to demand the stuff be put to use and Troy be made a gazillionaire, and probably canonized as well. But... Blasting a few old car doors does not a comprehensive military test make, as you of course very well know. And of course Mr. Hurtubise immediately makes sure we all understand that he isn't firing on all four cylinders by claiming that the pads would have prevented the collapse of the WTC... As I said, a well-meaning loon.

Never mind the friggin' bear suit. If anyone wants to try out for themselves if a padded chain mail armor can keep a grizzly off their flesh and bones, be my guest. I prefer the tried-and-true method of staying away from bear country. And if the bear has fun picking the oddly stuffed human apart, then good for him. Back on topic: Linkys or it didn't happen, please. Respectfully krise madsen

Told you so, all you whiny old women. Now go eat crow. Then play v1.05 and post constructive feedback on what further need fixing or sumfink. I eagerly anticipate the arrival of a CMSF-capable PC in the new year and I look forward to playing the updated and improved version benefiting from the contstructive cooperation between BFC and the community. PS: You lot (AND YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN) better be bloody grateful that I'm not the moderator on this forum.

OK, since you're so keen on evidence. Linkys to Canadian and USMC tests please. Evidence that he's a well-meaning loon? And why would anyone test to see if his inventionas had merit? Because during WW2 some boffin told the RAF that he could blow up German dams with a round (later changed to cylindrical) bomb that would spin, skip across the water and roll down along the dam wall. It was one of the daftest ideas I've ever heard of. And it worked like a charm. Oh and BTW, getting hit by a truck isn't quite the same thing as being eaten by a bear.

I think the words "Serious" and "Troy Hurtubise" don't go well together. "Well-meaning loon" and "Troy Hurtubise" would be more appropriate, IMO.

Best wargame? Some were better than others, but I could never pick one to be better than everything else. CMx1 and X-COM are about the only turn-based games I've ever liked. X-COM win by a small margin. Haven't tried CMSF so I couldn't say how that fits into the equasion. Harpoon 1 & Fleet Command, with a slight edge to Harpoon (better, more completed game), and also because it has nukes, and nukes are always fun to play with. Fleet Command does get the special award for the cheesiest acting I've ever seen in a computer game (at least by professional actors like these were). M1 Tank Platoon & Gunship: From the days when good games had MicroProse printed on the box. This is a dead heat. I love both of them. The Dynamix Triplets: Aces Over Europe, Aces Over the Pacific and Red Baron. Back when the term "survey sim" was worth something. The Aces games win on the WW2 setting. Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon: Many have tried, even more have had the potential, but no other FPS games has ever matched these two tac-sims.

Here's the thing of it: soft armour doesn't stop 5.56, so no reason to switch. And SAPI plates stop up to 30-06 AP, so 7.62 doesn't cut it either... so you might as well stick to 5.56. If full-coverage armour ever gets good enough to stop 5.56 (which it might, most likely through application of shear thickening fluids), the torso will still have added protection for 30-cal AP threats, so you have to go substantially past 7.62x61 to get results. </font>

Guys, we're drifting off topic, like. People have been debating terminal ballistics for ages, and this thread won't be the end of it Since my comment (somewhat inadvertently) was drawn into this, allow me to clarify my point: If any problems in defeating body armor with the 5.56x45mm round arises, the solution will likely be to issue 7.62x51mm weapons (rather than develop some fancy new weapon/caliber), since both weapons and ammo are readily availible. However, as long as there aren't any problems of this kind, the 5.56x45mm round will remain the standard caliber. For the foresseable future, that is.

Oh how quickly this thread has run amok. I really expected more from this forum...

As to the original question, well... There will be a continuous interest in developing caseless or composite/polymer cased ammunition. Particularly to reduce weight, but also in the hope of reducing cost (at least long term cost, as implementation is bound to be expensive). Cost is a major factor. Not so much the cost of the individual item, but the cost in relation to performance improvements over existing systems. The XM-29 OICW was canned because it was too heavy and didn't work properly. But even if that hadn't been the case it would probably have been canned anyway because it only added so much to the soldier's performance, yet it bloody expensive. The flechette-firing Steyr ACR was noted for its laser beam-like ballistics, very low recoil and excellent body armor defeating properties. But terminal ballistics remain an issue. It is also noteworthy that the only weapon that has been a serious bid to replace the M16 so far is the XM8. Apart from the extensive use of polymers and the gas piston system, it was almost identical to the M16: A selective fire 5.56x45mm assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. It might have been a little bit lighter and a little bit more reliable, but overall performance would be extremely close to the M16. The primary reason for introducing it would have been reduced cost over the lifetime of the weapon. The metal cartridge firing small arm as we know it today will not only exist but be dominant for many years to come. Apart from increased used of plastics, there quite simply hasn't been that much development in the basic mechanics of firearms for a long time: For all their hi-tech gadgetry, one of the most popular weapons among US forces today is a heavy machinegun introduced before WW2 (M2 .50 cal. HMG). And the handgun everyone has the hots for, and still use in battle, was introduced before WW1 (Colt M1911 .45 ACP). On the other hand, we will undoubtedly see continued development and deployment of small arms accesories: Optical sights, night vision devices, lasers and illuminators, on-board cameras, target designators and probably an awful lot of gadgets none of us have heard of yet. Basically, the kind of hi-tech stuff currently found in jet fighters and main battle tanks will eventually trickle down to the individual infantryman. The notion of airbursting munitions also seem to have come to stay. Eventually, weapons like the stand-alone XM-25 grenade launcher and the XM-29 OICW combo will appear on the battlefield. But as for the foreseeable future: If defeating body armor suddently becomes a problem, they'll just issue everyone with 7.62x51mm rifles.

I didn't find this forum until some time after CMBB release. I found BFC to be pretty straightforward, and the same goes for the CMSF forum during development. Could those that have been here since CMBB release (or earlier) tell me, has BFC been this "quiet" before or is it really unusual?

Look, I dont mind it having RT as an option, I prefer it when I soslo play. I dont mind the location, I dont mind the setting, I dont mind any of these issues as they have no significant impact on the *core* issues. And, most people on this forum does not mind that either. What they *do* mind, is the core issues around this. I wont repeat them all, since you no doubt have read all about them. What Im saying is that some people try to paint the discussions on this forum as a thing between the extremist no-RT, hard core grog guys and the sensible, "just a few bugs" guys. And it is not. Lets not pretend it to be like that either. And dont insult the intelligence of the people who post here to act that way. </font>