luderbamsen
-
Posts
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by luderbamsen
-
-
If I argued his points on the deficiencies of CMSF then you'd be right (arguing the finer points of the game without having played it would admittedly be pretty stupid) But I'm not arguing those. I'm sure all of his points of critique (LOS, AI, whatever) are spot on, and I agree that they should be fixed. Q.E.D. you're wrong.Originally posted by Panzer76:I agree with Zemke.
BTW luderbamsen, I think it may help your understanding if you had actually *played* the game you are discussing.
Why blame the problems out on RT? What good would it do to scrap RT to fix the problems in WeGo? If WeGo needs to revert back to what it was in CMx1 (or something very similar) then make it so. Just ask for a WeGo fix and stop taking it out on RT.
And we've been over the scenario setting ad nauseum, in which the current scenario (loose backstory) was by far the most popular among forum members. Personally, I'd want a mid-80's Fulda Gap scenario, but that ain't gonna happen (it'll never sell, apparently). I wouldn't mind an Iraq scenario either but that would be a bit too sensitive for the tasts of some so that ain't gonna happen either.
I feel somewhat guilty because this is going to look like I'm taking it out on you an Zemke when in reality you're only two among many. And pardon me for being very blunt:
Stop whining like old women. Tell BFC what needs fixing, be it bugs, glitches or gameplay deficiencies. Complain when it still isn't fixed with the next patch. Tell BFC what you want and don't want for the next module (a lot of you want WW2, I presume, which is fine with me and as good a suggestion as any). But stop moaning about RT being included, that it wasn't the WW2 setting you wanted, that you don't like the Syria scenario and so on, because that ship sailed a long time ago.
Again, pardon my language and please don't take this personally.
-
You have what sounds like very valid points (haven't really played CMSF), and of course they should be addressed: AI, LOS, quick battle, unit composition e.c.t. And of course these issues should be addressed by BFC. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're working on it as we speak.Originally posted by Zemke:The main problem I have had with CMSF is with some design decisions of the game itself. I don't see how going to Real Time was an improvement at all. I like it as an option to draw in a younger crowd more used to that type of game, but as you said yourself, serious tactical play is better suited to WEGO.
After all, this is a nich game, and will never have the sales of the larger publishing houses. I think BFC should have stuck with what got them where they are, and not tried make a product that tried to please both worlds, RT click fest and serious wargamers.
Other design decisions just seem stupid or very short sighted, for example the Quick Battle format. For the life of me, I cannot understand how or why they came up with such a lame method of doing QBs. The CM1 system was good, not perfect but it worked well, and has allowed CM1 to live long past the life span of most other games. Using a simular system could not have been that hard, and would have been the smart thing to do.
Using Syria as the Theater of Operations, even after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, who thought of that one? If you wanted to do modern, then why not stick with realistic events, and Iraq/Afghanistan are real wars against a real enemy. Only saving grace I can see from doing CMSF modern is perhaps (if they survive), they can get the WWII game right.
TCIP play, which I think is the real future of all games, and if you really want to appeal to the younger players out there, then include a well thought out method of online play. I have said from the beginning, that fetures like optional RT or WEGO should be part of the choices allowed players. Have a centralized site to to facilitate online play, simular to Rome Total War or HypperLobby for online flying.
Game orders and interface seem poor, a step backward over CM1 in tactical orders options with fewer real options availible. I loved the "Movement to Contact" order in CM1, it allows you to move tactically and you knew your guys would stop, engage and not move anymore. I'm sure it was not included because playing in RT, you can "stop" your forces yourself. Now we are forced to become Stryker drivers or Squad Leaders for all vehicles and squads. How is that an improvement? Why was a "Follow Me" not added? I have seen this request over and over in the forums from very experienced CM players. It is a good idea, would save time and make game play faster, WTF over??
The Order of Battle options in CMSF are weak compared to CM1. You get what you get in CMSF, while in CM1 I can "buy"/"build" almost any type of Task Force. In CMSF I have to mess with the "Equipment Quality" constantly to get the equipment mix I want, and still don't get exactly what I want. Again another example of poor design or decision making, or a lack of CHOICE.
What I consider smaller issues related to the internal programing due to the new engine, I think and will be fixed sooner or later. These seem to be the most posted on issues, lack of smoke from IDF, LOS/LOF issues, terrain and so on. I pose the question, if this engine is so great, then why do we have LESS options on play instead of more, why do we seem to be missing several key aspects of CM? Give the player MORE options, not less. Even if the designers disagree with my preferences, don't take out options or orders, give the player MORE options. This can only help sales, no hurt them. Give us more CHOICES.
I have been playing CM since 2002, and have a LOT of games under my belt, with 95% against human opponents, either PBEM or TCIP. The current AI in CMSF does will not give this game the "legs" CM had because so much is designed for RT and playing against computer, not human opponents. Human Opponent play is what will give you the word of mouth, and make this new engine great. I cannot count the number of times I have recommended CMBB or CMAK to other wargamers who had never heard of it, and end up buying the game. In it's current state, I cannot do the same for CMSF.
I guess I "just don't get it."
Zemke
But why blame it on RT? If some of the really good CMx1 features are missing and needed, BFC should fix it. End of story. Never mind what the cause is. And who cares what the scenario is (there was a looong discussion about the back story a while ago)? As long as we get to shoot people and blow s... up.
TBH, it sounds to me like you want CMx1 with improved graphics.
-
Hey, I'm all for it. I just don't think BFC will do much of that. Personally, I'd like a "sandbox" on the side where you can mix n' match and tweak units, but that ain't going to happen.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:US vs Russia might not be realistic, but Russia vs Syria might be if the Islamist terrorists in the back-story attacked Moscow as well as several Western cities. Look at the Beslan school massacre and Chechnya. This is perfectly possible. Russia might then be on the US side in any invasion of Syria.
I'd ask BFC to put in ultra-modern Russian forces as part of the Blue force mix in a future module and then if people want to game hypothetical clashes between the US and Russia they have that choice.
-
Well, yes and no. A US vs. Russia/Ukraine scenario would, at least in terms of one-for-one equipment quality, be somewhat more evenly matched. But in the greater scheme of things it wouldn't really matter. And a US vs. Russia scenario wouldn't be terribly realistic either, at least not compared to US vs. Syria.Originally posted by Topo:I agree, but Sirians vs Sirians or US vs US sound less realistic than, eg Russians vs Ukraine or Russians vs US.
Russian vs US arent't perfectly matched, but they are less "asimmetrical" than US vs Siria;
The risk IMHO, with US and Sirya only is to play any scenario with an "ambush" or "antiambush" role.
Excuse my english.
Saluti
Anyways, this is really an issue of BFC business doctrine and strategy. Personally, I would love to see a US vs. Russia scenario, but I'm 95% sure they won't make one.
-
If you want something else than assymetric warfare, you have to play blue v. blue or red v. red. You're never going to find two perfectly evenly matched different armies. Even CMx1 didn't have this. End of story.Originally posted by Topo:Rollstoy is right.
Another weak point, imho, is the asimmetrical warfare as a single option; sirians vs sirians or US vs US sound unrealistic for me.
Hope to see more modern red armyes in future addons, and a "non desertic" terrain option.
Yes, user made scenarios are great, thanks for this service.
Saluti.
More units? Different scenarios? Different terrain? Sure. Lots of it, and the sooner the better.
-
As a CMBO/CMBB/CMAK-fan, the the sole reason I haven't purchased CMSF is that I don't have a PC to play it on at the mo'
. So I'm left with the forum feedback to form an opinion, which again requires separating the legit feedback from those whining like old women over trivial details.Anyways, "fix or do sumfink" seem to be most pressing issue: Major gameplay related bugs (AI, LOS e.c.t.), not minor graphics glitches. The latter ought to be fixed as well, but obviously not given top priority (duh!).
Like it or not, adding RT was a really good idea. Sure, the player gets information overload when juggling larger units but that's unavoidable unless you want to loose most micro-management features (actually not such a bad idea, but sort of a separate game). It adds some fast-paced spunk to the game, and you're not forced to use it anyway.
WeGo, notably MP (apparently) doesn't work as well as in CMx1, and it really should. WeGo is still the choice for "serious" tactical gameplay.
BFC has always supported their games well. There is no indication that CMSF will be different (and it would be business suicide anyway). The bugs will be fixed. And common decency dictates that such fixes are distributed for free via patches, not requiring the purchase of any sequel, expansion or module.
Which scenarios and units to include in future is a subject (and thread) onto itself. I'm less concerned with which units to include and more concerned with quantity, quality and speedy production. Marine module? Who gives a f... as long as we get lots of new (good) content in a timely manner.
Dude. You said "Sega". You must be, like, really oldOriginally posted by PeterFromLA:...as a Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six veteran...
...Segas and the Playstations of the world...
So, let’s try to be supportive of a team that loves the subject of tactically accurate games as much as we do, cut them some slack, and hope that will help them produce more exciting material for us to chew on…
. Nah, just kidding. And you're right, it's basically support BFC or be left with C&C...BTW, if you long for the R6 and GR of old, check out BlackFoot Studios. EDIT: Link removed.
[ November 08, 2007, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]
-
A long, long time ago, I mentioned sumfink about the importance of content for a "long term validity game" like CM:
"Locking" the scenario in 2007 simply won't fly. No matter how many times "2007" is written on thebox, the disc, the manual and in the game, people will look at it, and play it, as a "Present Day" game. And if the content begin to fall too far behind real life, interest in the game will decline.
It doesn't really matter how this "updated" content is provided: By BFC, 3rd party providers or as mods. And as large packs or individual items (through micro-payments). And it doesn't have to be free. In fact, it can be rather expensive as content packs go, and people will still buy it. But it has to be of the usual (high) BFC quality, and it has to be delivered in a "timely" (you figure out what that means) manner.
CMSF hasn't begun to "look old" yet. Far from it. Besides, sanding off the rough edges and curing the teething problems is still the No. 1 priority with CMx2.
But eventually it will begin to look old. I recently saw a documentary about Iraq that was about 3 years old. Everyone were wearing the "old-fashioned" 3-tone desert uniforms and the HMMWV's lacked the roof turret. It gave the whole thing an odd aura of a "blast form the past".
The ONLY valid reason for not adding content is money: Obviously, the income from such content must exceed the expense of making it. To expect otherwise would be unreasonable.
PS: All this could of course have been avoided by making a WW3 scenario as I suggested...
[ November 09, 2007, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]
-
There is a bloody awful huge difference between riding a tank into battle, tankniki-style, and hitching a ride in a rear area. 9 out of 10 contemporary pics of tank riders will be of the latter type.
I do seem to recall US infantry figting from the engine decks of Abrams tanks during OIF1, but it could be my deranged mind playing tricks again.
Should BFC waste any time on it? Not now, but worth remembering come CMxWW2 time.
-
-
As I recall (there is a thread about DMR's somewhere on this forum), there are designated marksmen and there are designated marksmen. The issue is handled at unit level and is quite informal. The designated marksman of a squad would simply be a soldier that has shown particular shooting prowess. He is then issued with weapons accessories (optical sight suited for precision shooting and maybe a bipod) for his bog-standard M4.
If taking things a bit further, the marksman could be issued with an M14 (pulled from US stocks). The M14's range from standard issue guns fitted with a scope to elaborate custom jobs like the M14 EBR. Again, this is something handled informally at the small unit level.
Therefore, having the designated marksman equipped with an M4 would be quite realistic.
-
Reviews are lurkwarm across the board. The general consensus seem to be that the game as such is very good, but that the bugs and glitches pretty much ruin the experience.
Now those reviewers "in the know" are perfectly aware that these are teething problems that BFC will eventually address (and have noted so in their reviews), but not all reviewers are so enlightened.
I won't pretend to know how much this will influence sales, particularly to the unitiated gamer, but it most certainly isn't going to help things.
Personally, I'm a little dissapointed that CM:SF wasn't delayed until the most aggrevating bugs were ironed out. Quite frankly, I expected more from BFC.
-
I'm hardly a forum veteran or luminary so I'll let those who are express what they're looking forward to.
Instead, I'll join the welcome chorus:
Greetings newcomers , and welcome to this great forum. This is a virtual treasure trove of information on the game(s) and subject (combat) at hand. These people can answer practically any question, though the answer may be a bit more elaborate than you'd like
There are some very clever people here, most of which are happy to help out.Some of them are a bit, excentric shall we say. In fact, this forum regularly turns into an insane asylum. In particular, you will see threads with rather odd names (which shall remain unnamed here, you'll know when you see them), where the usual forum rules are, erm, "tweaked". These threads are not exclusive to forum veterans, but enter at your own risk.
Early on, you as a newcomer may see yourself referred to as an SSN - Scum Sucking Newbie. Don't read too much into that. Like everywhere else, the old hands like to pick at the new guy, but it doesn't really go any deeper than that.
One more thing: Don't be intimidated by the fact that a lot of forum members seem to know everything about the game and the real-life military equivalent. If there is something you want to know, no matter how basic the question, ask . Usually you will get a proper answer without any snickering. There are no "stupid" questions, only stupid answers .
-
There are no cultural references. Luderbamsen translates as "The Prostitute Teddybear". It was a name given by a bunch of 1st graders (or thereabout) to a pink teddybear, and became a running joke among some friends of mine.Originally posted by Freeboy:is there a culteral reference I am not geting in the above? pink? pro? teddy bear?
Back to the subject, are we going to have special forces "teady bear " units with special pink insignia? Special moral troops? ok now that was sick even buy my standards!
WW2 is often criticised as too over done, I suggest it is doen for a reason... great variable tactical situations and units spanning a good deal of terrain and types of weapons, from biplanes to jets, from mini tanks to monster tanks, from light submachine guns to single fire arms of all calibres... I would love a cmak/cmbb plus ardennes game for terriegn and time frame and this new engine... looks promissing and could be the answer to those in need of cm type ww2 who are not satisfied with tow.. although I still think as tow developes it will shine....
Since I took the name I've gotten into all sorts of trouble. Nobody seems to get that it's just a joke, and keep accusing me of being a sexist woman-hater, among other things.
There is certainly nothing wrong with a good modern wargame, nor is there anything wrong with a WW2 game. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting one but not the other.
-
Well, I am faintly disturbing. On the other hand. Compared to the nutters on this forum I'm boringly normal...
Never mind. CMx2 WW2, fine. CMx2 whatever, fine.
-
It all comes down to strict, harsh and unforgiving forum moderation. But that's a full time job. And by full time I mean 24/7. BFC obviously has better things to do, i.e. supporting CM:SF and programming the sequels.
-
If someone could freshen up CMBO and CMBB to CMAK-standards, I'd be a very happy camper.
-
You really shouldn't think of Excalibur as a "guided artillery shell" but rather as a precision guided munition which happens to be fired from a land-based gun tube rather than an aircraft.
In some cases, it can replace an artillery barrage, notably against clearly defined targets with a well known position, such as bunkers.
In other cases, it can stand in for an air-delivered JDAM bomb, doing essentially exactly the same job.
Artillery is an area weapon yes, but nobody says it has to stay like that forever.
However, there are also things that Excalibur cannot do, such as continuous suppressive fire (unless you're unspeakably rich and can afford to sprinkle Excalibur rounds all over the place).
A key to Excalibur is accurate navigation and target location. This is where GPS and enhanced digital communications come into play. The two systems are very much complimentary, and without the ability to pinpoint targets, precision munitions are of little use.
-
No worries, I can wait. Stay away from my neck of the woods though, or there might be... trouble...Originally posted by SirReal:Got it by mail today. I pre-ordered from Paradox, and tonight I know what I'll be doing while all you losers are still playing CM1 games.
-
See what yo started here? This thread will go on forever, with every twit who ever visited these forums outdoing each other in pointless and inane comments. Damn you for uttering the P-word!
-
I suppose the only answer to the questions is: "Don't ask". Bloody silly people with too much bloody time on their hands. Enter at your own risk.
PS: I hereby renew my call for a save haven for SSN's and the other sane/normal people.
-
Wellcome aboard Guinessman.
Yes the amount of knowledge on this forum can be quite intimidating. I thought I knew quite a bit about military afairs, until I joined this forum that is...
And quite frankly, some of us are a bit, odd, shall we say, but don't let that get to you. Some of the answers may be a bit "unusual", though you'll generally get the answer you're looking for eventually.
And you grogs be nice to the newbies now, y'hear?
-
Well, being able to purchase via the website is definately a plus. I spent 6 months chasing down CMBO in the stores (this was just prior to CMAK release) and ended up paying almost full price for it. I didn't mind the cost (it was CM, after all), but I could have done without the 6 months of detective work.
-
Could we PLEASE stop talking about a CM Fulda Gap scenario?
I'm getting, well, "aroused", and people are starting to give me funny looks...
Of couse, if we were actually to get a Fulda Gap scenario I'll happily accept the humiliation
-
Could somebody PLEASE ban this loon?Originally posted by unsobill:Hi Steve, nice to see you got interested in our flame wars yadda yadda yadda...
. So I'm left with the forum feedback to form an opinion, which again requires separating the legit feedback from those whining like old women over trivial details.
. Nah, just kidding. And you're right, it's basically support BFC or be left with C&C...
Marine Module as Referendum
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted