Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

bartleby

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by bartleby

    QB Strangeness

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I generated a quick battle in the hills. It started out fine, I placed my troops and gave them orders. Then I hit go and noticed something strange...they started taking fire at once FROM BEHIND! Apparently the computer had the same setup area as I did! While I didn't accomplish my mission, I can report with some certainty that a Stryker platoon is vulnerable to T-72 fire from the rear. Anyway. I can't really remember the other settings, but it was a real-time game, if that helps.

    0

    OMG

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

    Got the e-mail for download ..and downloaded in 11 minutes here in Illinois. Now I need to go looking for patch I guess.

    Regards,

    Gunz

    I think the BFC download version is 1.01.

    And...25%!!

    0

    Ouch. Tom Chick holds forth on CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Panzer76:

    As a customer, I do not care how many people that are working on a game that I buy, compared to a big budget game. Are you saying that I will have to excpect that games from small companies, like BTS, will be worse than the ones from EA etc? Well then, why even bother buying anything from you? I just dont get why you harp about how little resources you have. It does not matter to the end customer.

    That's a valid point, but slightly mistaken, I think. If the only difference between a BFC title and an EA title was the quality of presentation, then there probably would be no reason to buy from BFC. But by being smaller and having smaller development costs, BFC can take risks that EA doesn't. Unfortunately, along with that smaller team comes a bit less polish and flash. It can also mean that testing is less accomplished, which means more bugs initially. I'm willing to accept those downsides to get at the great gameplay there. Bugs can be patched and problems fixed, but you can't change the underlying system. I don't want to denigrate the people who like EA games, I'm not a game elitist, but it's a different way of playing and a different mindset.

    The large developers seem to be sticking to the formula of evolutionary graphical increases and sequel after sequel in order to ensure a return on their (considerable) investments. One thing that sucks about the overall increase of computer graphics is that it's a lot harder to make assets for games. A new FPS can easily have 9 gigs just of textures and models. That's a lot of stuff for one person to make! I hope this doesn't drive independent developers out of the game business, but something is going to have to change at some point, anyway.

    0

    Poor AI, UI and pathfinding even with 1.02 patch ????

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I think we gamers might have to change our expectations of launch products. I can think of a lot of fantastic games that were buggy or broken at launch but patched later on. Especially for a small developer, testing and finalizing is going to cost a lot. As much as they deserve it, I doubt BFC is sitting on a pile of money like Blizzard and can afford to wait a year tweaking and polishing. The sad thing is that reviewers only review a game once. It might be interesting if some reviewers published follow-up reviews to see if certain things have changed for the better.

    0

    Not exactly on point for CMSF, but need verification

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The interesting thing about SDI is that Reagan wanted it because he didn't believe that deterrence worked. He initially wanted to offer it to the Soviets as well, since a mutual shield would be the only way to eliminate the power of ballistic nuclear weapons. They didn't accept his offer, and perhaps it was too much trust to ask of them, but that's how it went.

    A lot of interesting info came out after the Cold War ended, indeed. The scariest stuff was the Soviet's plan for tactical nuke use, as MikeyD mentioned - NATO just dropped the ball in that regard. We assumed that the other side would think the same we as we did without evidence to back that up. We would have had a terrible surprise if an actual conflict had come about. The overly rational models of nuclear conflict would have been useless. Thank goodness that's (mostly) done with, anyway....

    0

    Washington Post Article

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    To be honest, $2 million isn't that much these days. A company like id or Bioware could easily spend over $50 million on a single title and then discard the engine. Admittedly, they would make a lot by licensing the technology as well. Also remember that BF is going to be able to use this for a fairly long time - it's going to cost less to develop expansions and new titles with the same engine.

    0

    Is there a Merkava unit in shock force?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by unsobill:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

    It is funny how, generally speaking, domestic Israeli press is more than willing to thrash out their policies publically but in the U.S. the topic's considered inappropriate to the point of being thought offensive. Until Iran was mentioned I was assuming that cartoon was an Israeli political cartoonist's take on the vehicle's much-publicized poor showing in Lebanon last year.

    hmm good call - casket with cross probably represent thousands of christians slaughter last year in Lebanon by zionist nazists targeting civil compounds, schools, hospitals and infrastructure. </font>
    0

    Mines, wire, breaching operations and CMSF.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Spiny Mouse:

    I have pictures of MICLICs going off running through my head. :eek:

    Now that would be exciting. :D

    Unfortunately, a MICLIC is so big, given its 2,000 lb C4 charge, that it might overwhelm the map. But, gosh it would be fun.

    I was just watching the program Delta Company on TV. It's about a Marine company in the Iraq invasion, and had footage of a breaching operation where the MICLIC didn't detonate - apparently, some poor LCpl had to run out there and set it off by hand. That can't have been much fun. I wonder if BF will model that aspect too ;)
    0

    IDF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by unsobill:

    yeah IDF will be in Syrian war just like they helped throughout Iraq war - LMAO rather ask for that sexy french thing to get implemented instead of those that only brave to shoot women and kids

    I know this isn't really a cogent criticism of Israeli foreign policy or whatever, but Israel more than made up for any military support it could have offered by staying out of Iraq. Any chance of having some Arab support for the invasion would have gone out the window if they were a part of it. The same thing happened in GW1 - why do you think Saddam was launching Scuds into Tel Aviv?

    I think an IDF module would be neat just for the conflicts it opens up, but would probably be more trouble than it's worth.

    0

    Recent Stryker losses

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by John Kettler:

    bartleby,

    The super heavy APC concept based on the M1 tank chassis (and M1 level armor protection) was under consideration in the mid 1980s by the defense analysis community. Saw the drawings myself! I believe the interest in this arose from the lumps Israeli armor took during the 1982 Lebanon incursion.

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    Interesting, I hadn't heard about that. Can you direct me to some sources? I'm sort of interested in the HAPC concept, and this would be great to look into.
    0

    Syrian Air support?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

    Following Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was estimated to include:

    * 15 MiG-29 ground-attack aircraft

    * 30 Mirage F1 ground-attack aircraft

    * 50 MiG-23 multi-role fighters

    * 20 Su-25 ground-attack aircraft

    * 30 Su-20/-22 ground-attack aircraft

    * 7 Tu-16 and B-6D bombers

    * 10 Tu-22 supersonic bombers

    Interesting. I am willing to bet that their operational strength was much less than that list implies. As most on this board probably know, military power goes beyond the amount of equipment in the shed. You need trained personnel to fly and support all that stuff, staff to manage the fight, and facilities to support it. 12 years of neglect post-GWI probably eroded much of that. </font>
    0

    Recent Stryker losses

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

    Make it bigger and heavier...

    and it will became slower, easier to hit, more expensive, hard to maintain, more complicated to operate, dont cross many kind of bridges, dont go trough narrow streets, etc.

    And they will never be impervious to all kinds of attack.

    True, but Israel and Russia have both made efforts to go that way. The BTR-T and the Achzarit/Nagmachon use tank chassis. I'm not sure how effective operationally they have been, but I'd be surprised if someone at the Pentagon wasn't investigating the concept.

    But you're basically right. Making a bigger IED is pretty simple, but making a bigger APC is expensive and complicated. I'm not sure if there is a real "solution" to the problem.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...