Cuddles the Warmonger

That'd have been me if the game came out 12 months ago.  It's interesting to me that CMSF came out within weeks of my commissioning, and I played it religiously all the way through Armor school and my first deployment (of course, by the time I got to Iraq, reading Catch 22 would have been better preparation for deployment).  I'm now in the process of separating having finally got to play with tanks for reals.  I'm excited to have something to let me futz around with M1A2 SEP v2s as that was my last ride, but I can't claim any more interest now except for my love of wargames, and "for old times sake" if you will. 
 
Now if only there was a way to customize the names on gun tubes......

jamo552,
 
Until it doesn't. Trevor Dupuy had an outright disastrous prediction regarding GW I. It pretty much wasn't in even the same universe as the outcome, which saw minuscule US direct casualties (not DU poisoning and such), when the QJM predicted a horrific attrition based meat grinder. This meat grinder model was based on what happened in the many years of combat between Iraq and Iran, but it utterly failed to address a whole series of factors not in play there, not the least of which was overwhelming Coalition airpower. While its effectiveness was greatly overstated when it came to killing armor, it was really good at isolating the battlefield, tearing up logistics columns and facilities and preventing resupply. Read the accounts. Deluges of aerial ordnance (B-52 carpet bombing, for one), coupled with little food or water, not to mention officers abandoning their men. And when the vaunted Iraqi artillery, still functioning despite concentrated efforts to remove it, did open fire, back came what the Iraqis called "steel rain": 616 DPICM submunitions per MLRS rocket. A single SPLL could effectively cover an entire 1 x 1 km grid square. How'd you like to be in an open gun position with that pouring down?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

The CMBS backstory basically has both sides blundering into a regional conflict neither of them wanted. They both believed that with a sufficient show of resolve the other side would back down. But neither side does. Russia would no doubt have preferred that NATO was intimidated by its show of force, NATO would have preferred to have Russia hesitate before firing on NATO forces.  I do not think *fictional Russian leader* in 2017 would willingly doom his country to assured nuclear annihilation over the fate of Kiev. So win, lose or draw the CMBS Ukraine conflict stays conventional and contained. No bombers over Moscow, no submarine launched cruise missiles fired into Norfolk naval base.

You mean a post-nuclear war campaign? Yeah, that could work (but i am telling you: it wont happen.). However using nuclear weapons in CM is just way beyond CM s scope, especially when we are talking about those high yield warheads that are mounted on ICBMs. A 500 kt warhead dropped in the middle and of a 2x2km CM map would always result in a draw - both sides forces would litterally be vapourized, and if it was a ground detonation the resulting crater would probably take most of what is remaining of the map. But even a warhead in the lower kiloton range would probably be so decisive that the battle would be over after its detonation.

they are breeding like rabbits.  Pink Rabbits.  Pink Rabbits about human size.

Nothing to apologize for, i thought about opening an age-poll as well.

I don't care one way or the other. I buy games on Steam, I buy games outside of Steam. For someone to say that they won't buy a game outside of Steam strikes me as ludicrous. If I want to buy and play a game, I'm going to do it whether it's on Steam or not. 

This topic has been discussed many times before. Those conversations can be searched for.
 
The short answer is that BF has looked into this very carefully and the cons of being on Steam outweigh the pros. So, there is zero chance CM will be on Steam, unless Steam makes changes to its policies that would alter the pro/con balance.

Huh. It was actually a legitimate site! Now I can call my wife back in the room.
 
Thanks.

I think Steve had commented somewhere that special forces kind'a lose their 'edge' when they're being used as line infantry against a prepared enemy. The whole point of special forces is to do everything BUT that. We'd have to reverse the trend for larger battles with special forces, return to the old CMSF days of scenarios involving a narrow-focus assault on a single building in the middle of a town.

The problem with that is that you couldn't cherry pick your forces in CMSF. It was choose a type of force you wanted to play with and pray to the CM gods you didn't have to attack a city with a company of dismounted Tow Launchers or AAV-7's with no infantry supports.