Pelican Pal

I've made two scenarios for CM:RT so i'll throw in my two cents.
 
Making the briefing and the maps used during the briefing (especially the bloody maps) is annoying, difficult, and absolutely no fun. Both of my scenarios are at the "add in tactical/strategic maps stage, and maybe one day they will get past that and I'll release. However, when it comes down to it I have limited free time and I can either play some Dota2 or spend time in photoshop.
 
I general choose Dota 2.
 
And on top of that I generally make scenarios for my personal enjoyment. During the design and testing phase I get my enjoyment out of it.So do I want to put in that extra effort for a dubious reply from the forums?

Even though modern combat does punish staticness to a great extent it doesn't mean that you are always moving.
 
Your armored vehicles will not be moving constantly and it would be better off for them to be dug in than not. The way some of you are talking it sounds like these vehicles should always be moving.
 
An example of a perfectly good use of dug in tank positions:
 
You have a platoon of Mech. inf. in a deeply wooded area. You have some scouts at the edge of the woods providing observation and empty prepared positions along the edge of the woods. When the scouts spot enemy troops advancing your IFVs and infantry squads move from the safety of the deep woods to these prepared positions. They would now have 2-5 minutes of fighting time with an almost certain guarantee of not being engaged by indirect fire. You could even have secondary positions that you move to after a few minutes.
 
I also wouldn't use either Gulf War as a reason to condemn static defenses. Iraq was a perfect storm of conditions for a modern army to trounce a 3rd world one.
 
Mildly highjacking the thread. Will we see improved infantry fighting positions in the base game or any of the modules?
 
Reinforced houses, overhead cover, thermal cover, and more complex defenses in general would be nice to see. While Modern definitely doesn't favor sitting a squad in a trench all day. I don't think static fortifications are useless. Its just that the simple trench from Red Thunder looks more and more like a death trap.

Even though modern combat does punish staticness to a great extent it doesn't mean that you are always moving.
 
Your armored vehicles will not be moving constantly and it would be better off for them to be dug in than not. The way some of you are talking it sounds like these vehicles should always be moving.
 
An example of a perfectly good use of dug in tank positions:
 
You have a platoon of Mech. inf. in a deeply wooded area. You have some scouts at the edge of the woods providing observation and empty prepared positions along the edge of the woods. When the scouts spot enemy troops advancing your IFVs and infantry squads move from the safety of the deep woods to these prepared positions. They would now have 2-5 minutes of fighting time with an almost certain guarantee of not being engaged by indirect fire. You could even have secondary positions that you move to after a few minutes.
 
I also wouldn't use either Gulf War as a reason to condemn static defenses. Iraq was a perfect storm of conditions for a modern army to trounce a 3rd world one.
 
Mildly highjacking the thread. Will we see improved infantry fighting positions in the base game or any of the modules?
 
Reinforced houses, overhead cover, thermal cover, and more complex defenses in general would be nice to see. While Modern definitely doesn't favor sitting a squad in a trench all day. I don't think static fortifications are useless. Its just that the simple trench from Red Thunder looks more and more like a death trap.

I'm not sure what the BMP-3 has in it. However, the ATGM from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 are dismountable.
 
Edit: Not in game.
 
A ground mount is carried in the vehicle which allows the rifle squad to remove the ATGM and take it with them.

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/
 
"
Welcome to Steamworks. Now your game can take advantage of a gaming platform that has over 40 million players worldwide and spans multiple systems. Whether you’re looking for matchmaking, achievements, anti-cheat technology, in-game economy systems with microtransactions, or the next big feature in gaming, Steamworks has what you need.

It’s free: There’s no charge for bandwidth, updating, or activation of copies at retail or from third-party digital distributors.

It’s freeing: With Steamworks you avoid the overhead and delay of certification requirements—there are none. Distribute your game on your terms, updating it when and as often as you want. "

There are a lot of free to play games on Steam, mods, and the ability to link games through Steam even if you bought them elsewhere. Steam doesn't require that you make them money to be on Steam. I can buy a game off of the Humble Bundle store and then register it to Steam. Steam gets no money from that transaction and probably loses money because they pay for server bandwidth to allow me to download the game.
 
At this point Steam (Valve) is competing more for mindspace than actual sales.
 
Na Veske,
 
Personally I would prefer it. I would probably play CM more often, own more CM products, and enjoy my time with CM more than I currently do if it were on Steam. But at this point Steam is much more than a storefront for me.

I think you are pushing it quite a bit there. There are definitely CM players who do care if it is on Steam or not.
 
Anyway, I would find it but the search function appears to be not working for stuff posted on the old forum. Anyway, in the before time there was a post in this post this was detalied: BFC contacted Valve about putting CM on Steam. They got to look at the contract and found that what was being offered wasn't better than what they had now. They decided to continue with the current system. AFAIK that situation has never changed.
 
There are also considerable risks to putting CM games on Steam. Some of these include:
 
#1: Coding time to hook the games into Steam. This requires that projects that are sure to make money are put off.
 
#2: Cannibalizing current customers at a lower price point. Right now 100% of money paid to BFC goes to BFC (not their own backend costs to support the store front). With Steam somewhere around 70% of the money paid in makes it to BFC. They need to make sufficient new customers to cover the loss of revenue from current customers going to Steam.
 
#3: The team at BFC is probably pretty old. The first game was announced in like 1999. So lets be generous and say that they were all 25 at the time. That would make them something like 40 years old.  Financial they individually probably cannot afford a setback at this point.
 
There are solid financial reasons for BFC to maintain it's own store front.
 
Personally I think a few of y'all can afford to calm down and stop throwing vast generalizations around.

I think you are pushing it quite a bit there. There are definitely CM players who do care if it is on Steam or not.
 
Anyway, I would find it but the search function appears to be not working for stuff posted on the old forum. Anyway, in the before time there was a post in this post this was detalied: BFC contacted Valve about putting CM on Steam. They got to look at the contract and found that what was being offered wasn't better than what they had now. They decided to continue with the current system. AFAIK that situation has never changed.
 
There are also considerable risks to putting CM games on Steam. Some of these include:
 
#1: Coding time to hook the games into Steam. This requires that projects that are sure to make money are put off.
 
#2: Cannibalizing current customers at a lower price point. Right now 100% of money paid to BFC goes to BFC (not their own backend costs to support the store front). With Steam somewhere around 70% of the money paid in makes it to BFC. They need to make sufficient new customers to cover the loss of revenue from current customers going to Steam.
 
#3: The team at BFC is probably pretty old. The first game was announced in like 1999. So lets be generous and say that they were all 25 at the time. That would make them something like 40 years old.  Financial they individually probably cannot afford a setback at this point.
 
There are solid financial reasons for BFC to maintain it's own store front.
 
Personally I think a few of y'all can afford to calm down and stop throwing vast generalizations around.

I think you are pushing it quite a bit there. There are definitely CM players who do care if it is on Steam or not.
 
Anyway, I would find it but the search function appears to be not working for stuff posted on the old forum. Anyway, in the before time there was a post in this post this was detalied: BFC contacted Valve about putting CM on Steam. They got to look at the contract and found that what was being offered wasn't better than what they had now. They decided to continue with the current system. AFAIK that situation has never changed.
 
There are also considerable risks to putting CM games on Steam. Some of these include:
 
#1: Coding time to hook the games into Steam. This requires that projects that are sure to make money are put off.
 
#2: Cannibalizing current customers at a lower price point. Right now 100% of money paid to BFC goes to BFC (not their own backend costs to support the store front). With Steam somewhere around 70% of the money paid in makes it to BFC. They need to make sufficient new customers to cover the loss of revenue from current customers going to Steam.
 
#3: The team at BFC is probably pretty old. The first game was announced in like 1999. So lets be generous and say that they were all 25 at the time. That would make them something like 40 years old.  Financial they individually probably cannot afford a setback at this point.
 
There are solid financial reasons for BFC to maintain it's own store front.
 
Personally I think a few of y'all can afford to calm down and stop throwing vast generalizations around.

I think you are pushing it quite a bit there. There are definitely CM players who do care if it is on Steam or not.
 
Anyway, I would find it but the search function appears to be not working for stuff posted on the old forum. Anyway, in the before time there was a post in this post this was detalied: BFC contacted Valve about putting CM on Steam. They got to look at the contract and found that what was being offered wasn't better than what they had now. They decided to continue with the current system. AFAIK that situation has never changed.
 
There are also considerable risks to putting CM games on Steam. Some of these include:
 
#1: Coding time to hook the games into Steam. This requires that projects that are sure to make money are put off.
 
#2: Cannibalizing current customers at a lower price point. Right now 100% of money paid to BFC goes to BFC (not their own backend costs to support the store front). With Steam somewhere around 70% of the money paid in makes it to BFC. They need to make sufficient new customers to cover the loss of revenue from current customers going to Steam.
 
#3: The team at BFC is probably pretty old. The first game was announced in like 1999. So lets be generous and say that they were all 25 at the time. That would make them something like 40 years old.  Financial they individually probably cannot afford a setback at this point.
 
There are solid financial reasons for BFC to maintain it's own store front.
 
Personally I think a few of y'all can afford to calm down and stop throwing vast generalizations around.