JSj

Nothing wrong with paid alphas though - as long they are anounced as such. I bought Universe Sandbox² and KSP when they still alphas, but i still had fun with both. The great thing about playing alpha games is that there are new features added regularly, so every patch is not just a patch that fixes bugs but one that adds new content, sometimes lots of new content. The downside is that sometimes you download the new patch and the game actually becomes less stable or that the developmers may not finish their product, so there is abit of a risk involved. But yeah, i think i can wait for BFC to finish CMBS - although it is becoming more and more difficult every day. I am dieing of anticipation !

Throwing rocks at stuff is underrated...

 
... these things don't show on thermals! H4XX0R!!!

Best way for Russian forces to take down those pesky M1s is to retreat all the way to Moscow. And wait for winter to set in.

Hi Everyone!
 
You guys are like the seagulls in 'Finding Nemo'....
 

 
... I support that.
 
 
 
GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME? GAME?

But the RPG-7 operator will be deeply concerned about the CROWS, CITV, ERA, APS etc, etc, etc.
 
Which is to say, it is as absurd as my boasting that the AT4 will crush all Soviet tanks.
 
Re: M829A4
 
It's widely believed that it's been tested against current generation ERA tiles.  How valid this is, I'm not sure, but it is not unprecedented for such things to make their way west.  It's not unreasonable to assume, given the reletive stagnation in threat passive armor arrays that the A4 is mostly focused on ensuring ERA is not terribly effective against yankee imperialist sabots.
 
Re: T-14
 
Here's a few ways to look at it:
 
1. It is something that so little is known about to make including it, in effect an act of pure fiction in terms of what it actually does.  This is counter to the other future systems in the game which are broadly things that exist in small quantities now, or are not especially unreasonable leaps (like APS on Abrams, AMP rounds etc)
 
2. It is a vehicle that is apparently going from not really existing to serial production in short order.  As a brand new from the trackpads up design.  Again if it's going to roll into common operation in 2017, neat, but the struggles with other newer Russian systems would indicate that it would the exception, vs rule to go from blueprint to battalion.
 
I don't really see a reason to include a tank that is still largely conjecture, or still has not gotten near operational status.  More advanced T-90s/M1A2s, yeah, new modifications seem a go.  Brand new tank that we know nothing about in two years?  Pushing it.

think not?  Better think again.  Those tanks aren't built from legos.  They need components, the plants need components, the workers need to eat.  Building a strong military requires absolutely a strong economy.  The Allies beat Germany partly by the fact that they had economies that could adjust and far out produce the Reich.  The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of a poor economic model and an expensive military.  Russia's economy is more on par with Italy versus Germany and forget considering the US.  This is a game Russia has no hope of winning, to even attempt it ignores what is in the best interests of the Russian people.  They need a solid diversified economy that is growing as part of the world community, not a petro dollar dictatorship trying to play world power.  It will fail and collapse like every other country that has followed this path.  Unfortunately for Russians, they will have to start all over again from where they were 25 years ago.  Russia has lost a generation repeating the mistakes of an empire that will never come again.

Eeeeeh.  The M829E4 is strongly suggested to have been tested against anything short of an actual T-90 parked on the tarmac somewhere, and the ERA stuff especially has likely been compromised at this point.  The M829A3 is believed to be largely unaffected by ERA, stands to reason the E4 wouldn't be strongly deterred either.  Under the ERA the T-90's armor is nothing special  
 
I've seen Russian optics.  They'd have been pretty strong for 1999-2001ish in the US Army, but they're still many years behind.  Thermals especially seem to have problems maintaining resolution while moving.  Additionally the Nakidka requires frequent cleaning or else the dirt/dust will cause it to become ineffective.
 
Given superior optics, one of the strongest armor arrays in the world, and a weapons system that'll plow through ERA and into the juicy still filled with explosives center of a T-90, it's pretty reasonable to say the T-90 operator better have backup or a better plan than throwing tanks at a M1A2.
 
Finally the odds of an operational T-14 in 2017 is pretty low.  Personally I think it's going to be a rehash of what happened with the T-95/Black Eagle/etc, but a two year turnaround on a totally new tank in the middle of some of Russia's worst economic times.....yeah.  Doubting we'll see it in time to make a game set two years from now.  T-90AM is already science fiction enough at this point (although no worse than the M1A2 APS at this point, the reasonably close to happening vs the T-14's "sometime soon I promise!").  
 
Addendum:

 
 
Down for this sentiment.  As much as wargames are cool, the real thing is not something to be wished for.

What has a weak point under the turret got to say about spotting advantages? And doesn't that weak point represent the bit of the armour where that chance of survival got missed? Are you saying that the T-90 having to hit the weak spot makes the Abrams less well-protected than the Russian tank? And if the range is 1000m or less, how did you get to that range if the Abrams is static? Or are you saying that a moving T-90 will see the static Abrams before the Abrams sees the T-90? Reliably? And then you assume a gunner can automatically hit a precise targeting point. Or you're simply ignoring the fact that Macisle goes on to say:
In which of those areas of small advantage do you think Macisle is incorrect? Note that no one is saying the M1 is invulnerable or can't be destroyed by a T-90, just that the American system has an advantage over the Russian for any number of reasons, yet you appear to be arguing that the T-90 is at least even with the Abrams. Please say how the T-90's armour is less vulnerable to the Abrams, or how the T-90 will spot the Abrams faster, or something. Or bring another factor into the equation which counters the advantages that the Abrams measurably has. Rather than just spouting nonsense about WoT and how straightforward combat tank gunnery is.

This is someone who just used WOT as a training tool with a straight face, and then somehow linked Soviet stuff 1945 to being relevant to Russia 2015.  Think we can discard it pretty out of hand.

It's pretty easy to say that when you aren't faced with the behemoth in actual combat.. I bet that small window would be incredibly hard to target and hit when you are fearing for your life and faced with an actual fire breathing M1A2... and they rarely operate alone.  Heh.. I think there can be no doubt about the supremacy of the M1A2 SEP v2 on the battlefield, virtual in CM or real.. I would take it comfortably against any other potential opposing force tank in existence.

LOL blacktail is just mike sparks, that raving lunatic who loves the m113 and call it the Gavin. Not one word he says even resembles fact.

I have actually played it and I think it could have been better with bigger maps and the graphics were not the best but it was still a decent game. If a funny anecdote is required then you shall get one   

In the army when we had a parachute drill my company was doing a parachute jump my parachute deployed late and in those seconds I had a heart attack,  It deployed and once I landed the wind made my parachute drag me across the ground for a minute or so it was a horrible experience but good news is our company accomplished the given task.
 

If you are getting hit, you are doing something wrong. Armor that works is great, but you still want to avoid having to rely on it.

Sburke,
 
I have played CM for a very long time.  I have been involved in this franchise since its early inception.  I am posting this because I find it genuinly consternating that the game isnt marketed on steam.
 
von Luck

5 posts, 5 posts, 11 posts, 14 posts, 18 posts.  Did someone just decide over at a community board that a bunch of folks should come over here and push steam again or what?

Steam doesn't discount your games if you don't want them discounted...

Once again like I pointed out in the other thread, people that want CM on Steam are not out to ruin CM we want it to succeed and do even better than it is right now. Treating new guys who come on to the site to see if it will be available on Steam like dirt does nothing except show how ignorant this community can be to new ideas, and that goes for including new features in game as well as steam.

You are being just as ignorant/aggressive as the person you were just arguing with, obviously some of its customer base DOES want it on Steam (Including me) because topics are made pretty often by members new or old. Being a newer FORUM member means nothing if the person has been playing CM since it came out and didn't want to participate on the forums until now.
 
You really need to step off your high horse and accept the fact that Steam is something that is around and people like to use, some even in this community.

When is the last last time you used steam buddy? I've got thousands of hours logged into steam games and I don't think I have had a problem with steam logging me out for 4 years. And when I think of intrusive DRM I think of ubisoft and Silent Hunter V which would kick you out of game if you lost connection to the ubisoft platform for a split second. Not steam where you just have to be logged in for 10 seconds to activate your game. Then from there you can unplug your modem if you really wanted to.

I don't remember a time there was a Steam outage in the past two years or so,  what you experienced was scheduled maintenance that happens around a certain time that I am sure you can look up. During that maintenance time if you are not logged in you can not login to Steam, however if you are online you will automatically be switched to offline mode.

Saying a company survived for 15 years proves nothing to future success if they aren't willing to adapt to the change. I haven't been around BF for all too long so I am not sure how they have changed their marketing or image over the past 15 years (if at all). But you have to follow the change if you want your company to continue its success. Sure BF could survive by being a really small company that makes you pay for patches and makes their games very expensive to adapt to the low demand because of the games obscurity. But that wouldn't really be thriving from what I see the new technology from CMSF to now is very limited compared to say Civilization from Civ IV Beyond the Sword to now.

I don't believe you understand just how large and diverse the steam community is. You have people playing stuff from Europa Universalis 3 to Tabletop Simulator to Eurotruck Simulator. The steam community has changed a great deal from the early days of Half Life, Counter Strike and TF. It's a huge mistake to think that a community for Combat Mission could not be found on Steam.


Other than that I'm really confused to the other complaints on this thread other than the business model. "Invasive DRM"? What? It's 2015, by now you should have stable internet for at least the 10 seconds it takes to log into steam. After that it doesn't matter what happens to your internet. It can go out and you just switch to Offline mode. And yes Offline mode does work and your very foolish or not receptive to new technology if you think it doesn't work.

Am I supposed to be impressed now? I started on 8" ones, so get off my lawn you young whippersnapper.
 
The marketplace in 2000 was entirely different than the marketplace in 2015. Back then, PC games were still sold in actual physical stores. Nowadays only the very big ones or the ancient relics like Battlefront even bother with printing physical discs. What worked well in 2000 is a recipe for disaster in 2015. Battlefront has survived so far, but they're hardly thriving these days. After all, a company that has to price a small piece of vehicle DLC at $20 in order to even make a profit (and then still drops hints that they likely won't do it again because it wasn't really worth it) isn't exactly screaming "massive success story" to anyone with a bit of business sense.
 
Over 99.99% of gamers have never even heard of these titles. Thousands of potential customers who'll merrily spend their money elsewhere. There is only one single mainstream gaming source even mentioning the name Battlefront, and that's because they've got an author on staff (Tim Stone) who is a huge fan of the wargaming genre and who, just like many posters here, is constantly urging these antiquated business models to adapt and thrive in the modern gaming market. There is a joke game where you quite literally play a goat that is raking in profits Battlefront can only dream about. Train and farming simulators sell more in a single week on sale than Black Sea will in its entire lifetime. And all thanks to the massive exposure Steam brings. I'd also be quite interested in knowing how much Strategic Command 3 will outsell its predecessors now that it's most likely going to Steam.
 
Again, I've had this exact same discussion half a dozen times before. I've heard all these arguments before, I've been ignored for it, I've been insulted for it. And every single time I've been proven correct in the end. Paradox, Matrix Games/Slitherine, Illwinter, Longbow Games, ... They all strongly opposed Steam, they all predicted for years that going on Steam would ruin their company, they're all eagerly selling their games on Steam today. This time will be no different, so I really can't be bothered to be drawn into yet another endless debate about it. Either Battlefront will join the modern market in the next few years and we'll merrily enjoy many new Combat Mission games for decades to come, or they will stubbornly and scaredly vanish into obscurity and be replaced by someone else. Those Graviteam guys for example are going to be a really interesting competitor in a few years time, at the rate they are improving and innovating.