LukeFF

They've stated repeatedly that each east front game (with its modules) will cover one year.

When Steve mentiones Luftwaffe Forces... Are these ground infantry units. ? I vaguely associate Luft With 'air'

Nonsense

Bless you. I like the way you think.

Plenty of people were complaining that it was rubbish. Apparently you've not been keeping up with posts here lately.
 
Sure, if you liked having to refresh the forum constantly for it to recognize one's login info and not having it properly mark topics as read, then it was great, but I've a hunch not many people were in that group.

People seemed to enjoy Kiwi Soldiers, and replay it a LOT. And it was surprisingly quick and easy to make, meaning that the enjoyment generated for effort expended is probably amongst the best of any scenario out there.

18 Platoon, Platoon Patrol, and Dead Of Night all also seem to have been well received, and only required modest effort.

The 'trick' is to have a good concept #before# you start messing about in the editor.

I never played Tobruk and am sure that it is a fine game and all, but I always find it strange when people base criticisms of how "realistic" CMRT is based on some other game's rules rather than real-life data. I am sure that tobruk's rules feature more abstractions than CMRT and suspect that you are (not necessarily correctly) equating to ruk's rule so with reality.

Well, I don't think many users were looking for a change but the version of software that was running the old forum was getting out of date.

I for one appreciate the black on white colour scheme, much easier to read. And I really appreciate that this new system remembers what you have and have not read properly. That alone makes it worth it to me.

I think it is rubbish.
 
I don't recall reading lots of people saying the old forum needed changing.
 
I liked that link on an earlier post back to the old old site. Yes, CMBO still my game of choice on a Windows 8 netbook (Asus T100).

No doubt the dinosaurs said the same thing about the tree shrews.
 

 
Michael

(Yawn)

What?

..

This is not even remotely true. Seriously, have you even played the game?

Probably not helped by Steve Job's memorial in St Peterburg getting dismantled after current CEO Tim Cook came out as gay.
 
“In Russia, gay propaganda and other sexual perversions among minors are prohibited by law,” a statement issued by ZEFS reads.
The memorial, it continued, was “in an area of direct access for young students and scholars”.
 

 

Don't worry. Someone is working on a Forum Mod as we speak.

I am sorry Kettler, but I can not take your words seriously.
 
It's not the first time you reference to special connections of yours, sensitive information and such. At the same time you say you are not to disclosure what these sources are, adding sensitivity and secrecy as justifications.
 
This is a public internet board dedicated to a videogame and while I recognize that some people here are, or were, involved in the armed forces, I really don't buy other people talking about special sources, secrets etc. thus posing themselves over the Others of us normal people who have no special connections to military or governative agencies and are just here because we like the subject or the videogame.
 
I find this attitude a bit insulting. I am all happy to discuss with anyone about what we like, tanks, armed forces, events and such, but when I read someone telling me he is "sitting on a trove of intel of varying sensitivity which may or may not be allowed to use" I feel like I am being joked around. It's like a kid saying "I know the president of USA thinks this but I cannot prove it, so you should take it as granted, because I have connections". Really cuts any wish to discuss further for me. I respect any personal opinion, even very deep or strong analysis done by some people here, but they never refer to secrets, special information to prove their ideas that only they have access to. If someone thinks differently than me or has a different opinion, be it, different points of view, but I cannot respect someone who say or infer that his opinion has more strenght because he has access to information I (and all the Others here) don't have access to.
Phrases like: "Whole categories of important-shocking-mind-bending matters of which you likely know nothing". I really have no connections with US government, army, or agencies, I am here willing to discuss about anything for what I know, but if you come up with phrases like that I just consider you a fraud. Really, I can't belive someone with such connections would write things on a video game discussion board (with all respect to BFC of course). And the fact that you expect me to belive this kind of things and treat you as someone who is doing a big favour to us by giving bits of special information from the inside, is insulting.

I love the new forum!  So much cleaner so to speak, easier to read on my eyes.  Plus, and here is the big one...I don't have to refresh the page twice in order for the forum to register a thread read.  Beautiful!

It would do wonders if you actually quoted the post you are referring to.

sburke,

How about paying attention to the information, rather than deriding it because I won't reveal my sources? Every single day there are dozens of unattributed stories--"a senior White House official said today;" "according to an intelligence source not allowed to talk to the media;" "said an official at State who didn't wish to be identified," to name but a few--presented to the world. No one even blinks over this. What seems to be the case here is that you find it a) difficult to believe I have such sources myself and that they would tell me all sorts of highly classified things. I have them, and they talk to me because I have the peculiar skills to understand the information, place it in an overall context, look at it critically and present it with great discretion. This information is provided because the suppliers, at great risk to themselves, seek to inform the American people about pertinent matters, some of grave import. I walk a very narrow tightrope between getting the word out and saying too much.

You fail to realize that secrets are the lingua franca in DC and elsewhere. They are leaked accidentally (would you believe a very much still classified S/NOFORN/WNINTEL satellite pic of an Su-27 prototype at Ramenskoye, outside of Moscow, a pic which appeared in the Defense Authorization Hearings volume? Nearly gave spook types a heart attack) and on purpose, as in JFK's using highly sensitive missile intelligence (briefed to him since he might become president) for slamming the Eisenhower over the "Missile Gap" before the election of JFK. "Scooter" Libby outed CIA clandestine officer Valerie Plame for political gain.

I believe gratitude is in order, not to me, but for those brave Americans who care enough to at least partially alleviate the information gap; to pull aside, however briefly, the curtain of secrecy and show us what's really going on.

Regards,

John Kettler

Like announcing it on a public internet forum?



EVERYONE knows the White House is reviewing the decision and when they make up their mind they will announce it to the whole world. They will either veto it or not. Thank god these brave Americans risked their lives to tell me something that the whole world will know in a couple days. whew. And if he doesn't veto it you will say....... whatever.




In a word, YES. That would be a very concise and exact summation. But I'd say impossible, not simply difficult.

OK, well I am sorry for my part if you did not deserve it. However in my defense you did add a post onto one of the worst examples of "the game is broken because it does not match my perception of the way things should be in my opinion, but I will offer no real evidence that my perception is correct" threads in this forums history. (Yes there was a little sarcasm there).

And you also just declared the game broken and offered no real evidence. Heck I don't even understand what it was you observed in game that seemed wrong - I mean specifically.

When the performance of MGs first came up - way back now - I tried rushing infantry across the open against MGs and the pretty much always overran the MG's position. Not good.

Then the effects of MGs were tweaked and now in my same tests I could pretty much never overrun the MGs position. Nice!

I forget the exact troop soft factor specifications but it was not tuned down to a low level. So, unless someone can recreate something that shows things are not working as expected my experience and testing shows that things are. If you have an example that seems off by all means create some tests and share some saved games. But I recommend two things:


Start a new thread - and also start from the position that you think something might be wrong and that you have done some investigation.
Be open to the possibility that your testing, tactics or assumptions are not quite right.