greywulf58

Erwin....I'm a bit of an oxymoron . Your list of companies is a good one as well. Some great games by some great companies. Yes, the computer war-game market is a niche market and the iPad version of CMBN might open it a bit more.

Forgot another fine guitarist....Leslie West.

Oh you don't want to get me started on who hasn't been inducted into the R&RHOF. One guy that I've always viewed as one of the best guitarists, has never been inducted. At least I haven't seen his name there. Actually, there are two great guitarists that haven't been inducted. Who are these two? Richie Blackmore and the other is a rocker that performed a little diddy called "Goin' Home" at Woodstock '69. Remember him?

Thank you Erwin. I hope your mother recovers soon. I lost my mom in 2009. She was 97 and passed away from aortic stenosis.

Stagler. I agree with your upgrades for any future Combat Mission style game/simulations but I don't agree with your "Nobody wants to play as Pakistan or India." statement. I have been playing war-games of one sort or another for almost 40 years now. In that time I've seen some war-games that I thought wouldn't be worth the money spent on them but after playing them I found out I was wrong. You never know what someone might want, especially in this industry. I am not a computer programmer, much less a game designer but I feel that most companies that specialize in these types of games have missed the mark, except one and that is the old SSI. Now that company knew what its customers wanted and it is a shame that they went out of business. What they did, and what Matrix Games did, with the Steel Panthers was a very enjoyable gaming system, at least it was for me. Then I got hooked on the CM games and I still play those from time to time. What I want to know is this. Why can't a game (gaming system) be developed that would cover small unit tactical warfare from say World War II to the present or near future? The game mechanics (unit type, weapon type, movement) would be the same for each period. It would be a monumental task to portray each weapon system for each period in the time frame I've proposed but it could be done. Of course it would have to be a gaming system consisting of a base game (period chosen by a customer popularity vote) and subsequent modules. As I said, it would be a monumental task to develop such a gaming system but with today's computers it would be possible. There could even be some what-if modules...say, an extended World War II module where some of the proposed German weapon systems actually see combat. I am just dreaming but if such a game were to be produced...I'd be the first one in the line to buy it. Chris.

I am sure this post is old news, but I was just wanting to see how much damage the US could do vs any country using Russian equipment. Nasty to say the least. I will have to try a similar test using the Hinds. Next version of the game (crossing-fingers that it will be done) should include some of the newer Russian air-assets. Maybe model in AA assets as well that could shoot down or scare off a strike. Of course, then we get into the anti-radar aircraft and ECM units. Maybe too much for this level of warfare but it would be interesting to see in a simulation. As for the Viet-Nam kill ratio, 13-15 to 1 is about right. Also correct, that the US did win most of the battles but definitely lost the war. It would be interesting to see a new version of CMSF with a Viet-Nam module, including the tunnels. That would add a new dimension to a game. Of course, air-mobile forces would have to be modeled to make it a true simulation of that terrible conflict. Maybe include the Brown Water Navy riverene units too. I know, wishful thinking but its fun to dream.

Yesterday I conducted a couple tests to see how powerful US weapon systems are against those used by the Syrians. All of the tests were conducted on the largest map size available with no hills or terrain. Test #1: One platoon of M1 Abrams against a complete Syrian Republican Guard armored company. Result. After three minutes (turns), all Syrian tanks were destroyed and only one Abrams was taken out. Test #2: One US forward observer located on the third story of a building. Two A-10s CAS available. Again, a complete Syrian Republican Guard armored company. At the end of ten minutes (turns), only three Syrian T-72s remained. I was kind of disappointed when the A-10s finally used their 30mm guns because the unique sound of that gun firing was not evident. Definitely something to include in a future version of this game. Test #3: Okay, I lied. I did three tests. This test was the same as #2 but CAS was two AH-64 Apache Longbows. Almost the same results as in test #2, but five Syrian tanks survived. My conclusion is that if you play the Syrian forces you had better not try to take on US or NATO units toe-to-toe. You will lose and lose big. Now I want to see how effective Syrian air assets would do against US or NATO ground targets. I'll let you know those results shortly. Chris.

It wasn't a "linear" attack pattern (not available) but an "area" attack pattern. Still worked.

Thanks gents. Your words mean a lot to myself and Becky. We are staying as positive as much as we can and we both know that our lives will be better when we come out the other end of this nightmare. BTW....I have to agree with Mord about dropping a Javelin on an insurgents head. Did just that in a scenario and couldn't stop laughing when I did a replay of what happened. I'll give the details of that later...but it was damn funny. As far as Becky playing CMSF....good joke. Again, thanks for the words of hope and encouragement. Chris and Becky.

Good morning all. Yesterday was a very very bad day for my wife and I. Around 1 AM (EST) my wife woke me and said she was having bad chest pain. We called 911 and she was taken to the ER. Yesterday afternoon, she had a heart cath and the cardiologists found that the stent that was placed in one of her cardiac arteries in January of this year was partially blocked. They also saw that several other cardiac arteries were moderately blocked. They want to try a new cardiac med before going the bypass surgery route. We have been under a tremendous amount of stress since March and I am sure that that stress was and continues to have a direct affect on our mental and physical health. So, I'm asking that you send us your good thoughts and prayers. It looks like this is going to be a very long summer for me and my family. Take care and God Bless. Chris and Becky.

Since I started this thread, I've been playing a couple of the CMSF campaigns (Task Force Thunder and On Tracks Again). In the first scenario of the On Tracks Again campaign, I called in a strike using AH-64D helos against the Syrian forces that were dug in along a berm wall surrounding the major town in that scenario. I set up the strike as a linear pattern, using a general weapons load, medium weight of attack, medium duration of attack, and immediate resolution. I also made sure that the spotter kept the target and target area under constant surveillance and that the target (I think it was an ATGM team) didn't go into hiding. When I heard the chatter, the spotter had a definite European accent and the ensuing response was definitely American. Even though I requested an immediate attack, it took almost five turns (minutes) for the attack to occur. This delay could be a good representation of two different allied forces working with each other. Oh, and the attack was carried out. The helo attack started from one end of the trench and worked its way to the other end during the first run and then repeated the attack starting from the opposite end and working its way along the trench. The poor Syrian units died in a hail of 30mm cannon hits...alas, no missiles were launched but the fly-boys did a great job. So, all that has been said in this thread is correct. For a mission to be carried out, there must be a viable target in the target area and the spotting ground unit must be able to see that target or the target area at all times (no smoke, no dust, and the enemy not going to ground). Otherwise, the helos will just hover or patrol and then leave the combat area if no target in the target area presents itself. It might be a good idea for the next generation of this fine game, to have an option that allows the helos to stay on station for a specified amount of time and attack any target of opportunity if one presented itself and was under observation by ground forces and/or the helo itself. Just my two-cents-worth. Chris.

Again, thanks for the help. I have decided that I am going to get a computer that isn't so high on the performance and price scale. When I calculated the price I thought that I'd s**t a brick. Didn't even mention the price to my wife as she would have s**t a brick. I will do some more research into a new system and post the specs of it, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it for me. Again, thanks. Chris.

So let me see if I got this straight or not. Are you saying that this is just too much of a computer and that I might want to dumb it down a bit? At one time I might have needed such a computer since I did a lot of CAD design and CNC programming work with my old Sony VIAO (the one I'm using now). I have since shut down my resin casting business and will be using this new computer mainly for household and entertainment purposes. I have read, although it took a bit of searching, that Windows 7 can run in either 32 or 64 bit modes or am I reading this wrong? When I go to the various computer websites, they all say that the installed OS is Windows 7 64-bit (each and every one of them). So, I guess my question is this. If I buy a new computer and it is running at 64 bit, can I switch it to 32 bit or do I have to do something else to switch? HDD. Just a regular SATA drive will be better? Almost all the new computers that I've have found are Quad Core, although I did find a Pentium running at 2.67 GHz by Dell. Would this be a better selection as far as the CPU goes? Thanks for the help. I'm not a computer hardware expert by any stretch of the imagination and your info is very helpful. BTW, BF has some of the best Tech Support around (not to mention your fine games) and why I will always be one of your loyal customers. Chris.

I have always had a problem with those in the music industry putting JT in the Heavy Metal category. They are definitely not a Heavy Metal band, not by a long shot.

True. Just need the mods to make the units in those theaters look correct, unless they take place in North Africa or the Middle East.

Now that is what I call knowing your research data. Very good scenario background info. Thank you.

Is more work going to be done for TOW, say a version that would include modern combat like that in Combat Mission Afghanistan and CMSF? I do hope so, because I am planning to buy the entire TOW series later this year. I am really looking forward to playing this game even though I like turn-based games more than RTS ones. TOW just looks too good not to have in my new gaming library and I hope more work will be done with it. Thanks. Chris.

Yes, I can see your reasons for not including aircraft at a major airport, or even a small one. However, I do remember seeing both intact and destroyed aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Hussein International Airport when the US invaded Baghdad. I think those flavor items would add a bit of extra fun to the game. And what about all the support items (towing tractors, baggage carriers, fuel trucks, fire fighting vehicles, even civilian vehicles in the airport parking decks)? You couldn't move everything out of the way before an approaching force reached its objective. I agree, industrial complexes and railway yards (like those in Panzer Command Ostfront) would make for some interesting built up areas to fight in. Helicopters????? Surely, a helicopter borne assault would be something that many of us would enjoy conducting. Might be a bit brutal to get your troops into the combat zone but it sure would be great to see some Black Hawks or a big old Chinook deliver the troops into a hot LZ. Maybe too much to wish for. I also feel that the player should have more control over armed helos and have a couple extra commands such as land or hover. Combat commands would be basically the same as the ground troops but they would have limited munitions and would not be able to engage in extended combat with ground units without having to return to base (fly off map). As I said, maybe a little too much to ask for. Or, maybe by the time BF gets around to doing a x3 version of CMSF I will have my BS in computer gaming development and they would hire me to work on it. As for the future modules for CMBN, I feel that BF should introduce each module as the Allies advanced into France, then Belgium, and finally Germany. Not sure how they are going to handle the Eastern Front as that will be one hell of a project. Of course they should also include the North African campaigns, the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and modules for early war campaigns such as the invasion of France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. What about some small modules for say Crete and Malta or Partisan activities? Maybe handle this new CM like TAHGC did with Advanced Squad Leader. They could, and I hope they do, take this next generation CM very far. It could easily become the ultimate small unit tactical WWII games on the market. For a very long time, nobody could beat the old CM games. Take care and thanks for the comments. Chris.

Thank you. I was just reading that some of the games that BF makes do not support Windows 64 bit OS.

It might be ridiculous, but couldn't the scenarios and campaigns from CM x1 be used as a base for some scenarios for this idea? I mean there were literally hundreds of them done when those games were popular (still are as far as I'm concerned). Like I said, lets bring some life back to this excellent game. I could use all the help anyone would offer.

I posted this on the Shock Force tech forum but didn't get the response I had hoped for. This fall or early winter I will be upgrading to a much more powerful computer system so that I can enjoy Shock Force, CMBN, and TOW to their fullest. What I'd like to know is would the following system support all these games. System specs: AlienWare Aurora with; Intel® Core™ i7-3960X (Six Core Extreme, 15MB Cache ,Overclocked up to 4.0Ghz) 3GB DDR5 AMD Radeon™ HD 7950 Video Card 2TB RAID 0 (2x 1TB SATA 6Gb/s) 7,200RPM HDD 24.0” Dell U2410 UltraSharp™ Full HD Monitor Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ Titanium Sound Card Alienware TactX™ Keyboard Razer USA DeathAdder Optical Gaming Mouse Logitech Z506 5.1 Stereo Speakers 16GB Quad Channel DDR3 at 1600MHz Memory Dual Drives: BD Combo, DVD+RW Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64Bit, English

Oh, and lest we not forget about winter. Maybe too much to wish for but it would be cool (pun intended).

What I am wanting is to bring back some life into Shock Force and its modules since BF is not going to be doing anything more for it and won't be working on a x3 version in the foreseeable future. If I had the talent to do the mods, which I don't, I would come up with some Euro camo schemes for the Allied units, maybe do some old WWII German camo schemes for the Germans complete with the old German cross for the vehicles. Maybe do some Waffen SS units (black for crews and late war camos for the foot soldiers). Of course, if you did mods for Euro units that would mean that mods would need to be done to some of the buildings and other terrain features to make it work. It would seem to me that converting the German vehicles into the old DAK paint schemes would be much easier to do than camo schemes would be. Oh, and don't forget the new Soviet Union either....maybe bring back the Warsaw Pact. Now I may not be able to do mods, but I sure could do scenarios or campaigns based on the battles fought between the Allies and the Germans during WWII. I have one very valuable resource that would help me and that is Avalanche Press' Panzer Grenadier war game system....all games and modules (damn box weighs almost 40 pounds). One of the games, Cassino, has actual maps of that battle. Would love to pit the Allies vs the Fallschimjager in the fortress....I will be using this game to do scenarios and campaigns for CMBN once I get the base game and the Commonwealth module. So, that's what I am thinking of as far as Shock Force goes. Just need some help.

I was wondering if any of the modders would be interested in doing up some new vehicle and infantry mods for the Germans. I'd like to do some modern "what-if" scenarios or maybe even a campaign or two pitting the United States and Great Britain vs the Germans....sort of a Fourth Reich. It could even be a re-run of the North Africa campaigns....Tobruk anyone?

In the next few months (by this fall), I am planning to purchase a more powerful computer. The computer I am using now is nearly nine years old and even though I've added more memory and a larger hard drive, I still have some issues with graphics. This computer is quite capable of running all the CM series but the newer ones (CMSF, CMA, and the newer CMBN) can't be run with the best looking graphics level (for the most part I can't run those games at anything better than the Balanced setting). However, when it comes to the BF TOW series, forget it. So here is the system I'm thinking of getting. I'd like to know if I might have issues with any BF game with such a system. System specs: AlienWare Aurora with; Intel® Core™ i7-3960X (Six Core Extreme, 15MB Cache ,Overclocked up to 4.0Ghz) 3GB DDR5 AMD Radeon™ HD 7950 2TB RAID 0 (2x 1TB SATA 6Gb/s) 7,200RPM HDD 24.0” Dell U2410 UltraSharp™ Full HD Monitor Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ Titanium Alienware TactX™ Keyboard Razer USA DeathAdder Optical Gaming Mouse Logitech Z506 5.1 Stereo Speakers 16GB Quad Channel DDR3 at 1600MHz Dual Drives: BD Combo, DVD+RW Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64Bit, English Price: $4,252.98:eek: So, would this be enough computer to run all the current Battlefront Games? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Chris.