Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that I want such things like killing prisoners, civilian executions or rapes or something like that.

All of that is out of the scope of CM. Taking prisioners does in fact eat up resources (transportation, guards, food, medical treatment) and killing them is cheaper, but those decisions happen to be made behind the tip of the spear wich the CM battles are all about. Besides that you can actually kill surrendering soldiers in CMBN. Order area fire with HE on the action spot they are in and they will die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Battlefront has always been sensible with the animations. Just as the horrors of bodies being blown apart are not depicted I don’t think there would be men running around on fire, or anything gruesome. I don’t think anyone wants to see the game depict that real side of real war. We want the realism to be in the game physics of combat without showing the true horror. I do not think it necessary for any games to be bloody, and gory for any civilian application. The object of the game is to enjoy the strategy of war without all the bad realities of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to compensate for my first, rather impulsive post. I also don't need to see human torches or hear terrible screaming. There are other games around for that and they are not to my taste. But I do want to see flamethrowers and the cruel reality of war, because no matter what we tell ourselves, for most of us this is not a game, this is history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While handheld flamethrowers may not have been that common or used in Normandy (I simply don't know - I don't think the British used them much and they are primarily attack weapons, so the Germans probably used them sparingly, and I do not know about the Americans), the British did use the Crocodile flame thrower Churchill variants a lot and they were very popular with the British infantry they supported and reportedly very effective.

But BFC are about to release Market Garden and they made an impact there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
While handheld flamethrowers may not have been that common or used in Normandy (I simply don't know - I don't think the British used them much and they are primarily attack weapons, so the Germans probably used them sparingly, and I do not know about the Americans), the British did use the Crocodile flame thrower Churchill variants a lot and they were very popular with the British infantry they supported and reportedly very effective.

But BFC are about to release Market Garden and they made an impact there! I cannot comprehend that it will not be in that game

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of abstraction w/regards to flamethrowers would be my preference. I have no desire to participate in an animation which recreates horrific suffering. Flamethrowers have/had a physical effect on the battlefield like no other weapon. Bunkers could be resistant to all sorts of weapons, but not flamethrowers. The fear of immolation should be modeled against the targets' morale levels. The resolution and anger of defenders firing at the flamer should also be modeled.

Three different situations:

Enemy troops surrounding us, but they're pretty humane and accept surrenders?

Enemy troops surrounding us, but no one takes prisoners?

Enemy troops advancing with flamethrowers?

Each one should produce different levels of defensive "stiffness".

.02

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminating flamethrowers should be an absolute priority target for infantry. Currently it feels like in CMBN the guys carrying radios and officers are priorized by enemy infantry as targets. If that is true, the same thing should also account for man portable flamethrowers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And i have explained my point and you didn't answer questions. Why killing virtual soldiers with granades or mortars is good and why doing this with flamthrowers is not?

I have not said that flamethrowers should not be included in the game. Where did you get that idea?

Why dead bodies lying all over the battlefield is ok but burning bodies are too brutal?

Frankly, if you can't figure that out for yourself, I doubt that anything any one of us has to say will get the point across to you.

Don't you see contrary.

Nope. All I am saying is that the manner in which BFC currently depicts casualties is fine by me. I don't need to hear screams or see bodies (of parts of bodies) writhing in agony. I already know about that aspect of warfare and that's not what I come to CM for.

Maybe this should be a game about paintball not WWII?

Now you are being silly and insulting.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that sentiment is perfectly reasonable, even understated. The aftermath of any serious or prolonged fighting is ghastly. People get blown apart, shredded, crushed, or just punctured. There are dead people, people dying—usually in great pain—and people seriously wounded and in danger of dying. If that isn't bad enough—and it is plenty bad—there is rubbish, smashed and discarded equipment, buildings in various states of demolition, scattered around the battlefield. Holes are blasted in the ground, trees are smashed, and fields crushed under the treads/wheels of vehicles. The place is a mess several times over. Believe me, you don't want modern warfare coming to your neighborhood.

Michael

All good points....plus BFC does not think giving its customers nightmares is a good marketing strategy...

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
But BFC are about to release Market Garden and they made an impact there!

In ONE spectacular and spectacularly over-reported incident, which had basically no impact on the outcome of that particular battle* or the campaign.

Flamethrowers:

Nice to have? Yes.

Necessary to have? No.

Cause of endless handwringing in numerous forum threads? Of course.

Jon

* A battle which, perhaps not coincidentally, would be a horrible candidate for a CM scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think that [artillery] represents a significantly better way of dying compared to dying by flamethrower.

Culturally, we - and pretty much every other living thing on this planet - have a very deep seated fear of flame, fire and being burnt. Our fear of being cut, even deeply, does not come close to matching this.

So, in that limited respect, yes; being killed by artillery is "better" than being burnt by a flamethrower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not said that flamethrowers should not be included in the game. Where did you get that idea?

Nope... you didn't so why you were arguing me? I will remind you how did it start. Someone said that he is not sure if adding flamethrowers is good because of some strange reason that this is to cruel to burn pixels. I said that i want them and I want to burn enemy soldiers. I want blood and guts... or something like this. After this you had called me creepy and some other guy start to complain how this forum is degrading because of such creeps(probably creeps like me). So who is insulting who? And in fact I wasn't the only one sadistic creep who wants to burn pixel people( for example one of first posts:"ha! I wanna see em writhing around on the ground on fire =D") but only my post caused such outrage. maybe that's because i'm that stupid troll who once dared to criticize Battlefront Sims like policy and their payable patches? I don't care

Frankly, if you can't figure that out for yourself, I doubt that anything any one of us has to say will get the point across to you.

No I can't. Please, please tell me. tell me what's wrong with let's say Achtung Panzer. Jeez Even in Red Alert i saw burning and screening people lol

Nope. All I am saying is that the manner in which BFC currently depicts casualties is fine by me. I don't need to hear screams or see bodies (of parts of bodies) writhing in agony. I already know about that aspect of warfare and that's not what I come to CM for.

Oh, there are screams(could be better) right now just like dead bodies. I never said that I wanted to see humans dying in convulsions in their own sh*t or others scenes like from stupid movie Saw. And I don't want to play manhunt like game but this is a war game and battles should look like battles and should be bloody with some amount of violence because this is the essence of war you can't mask it. To win you must kill opponent. This is the game you are playing You can't pretend that you are playing some sort of chess. But this is only game.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
In ONE spectacular and spectacularly over-reported incident, which had basically no impact on the outcome of that particular battle* or the campaign.

Flamethrowers:

Nice to have? Yes.

Necessary to have? No.

Cause of endless handwringing in numerous forum threads? Of course.

Jon

* A battle which, perhaps not coincidentally, would be a horrible candidate for a CM scenario.

What ONE incident was this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care

You're posting an awful lot for someone who doesn't care :)

To win you must kill opponent.

This is not true, even a little bit.

Assuming you mis-spoke and meant to say "opponent's soldiers" or "opponent's forces", it still isn't true. Killing pixeltruppen is the obvious and easy way to win (and design) scenarios, but there's othing intrinsic to the game that makes that absolutely necessary.

This is the game you are playing You can't pretend that you are playing some sort of chess. But this is only game.

Chess is a game too. Better yet, chess is a WARgame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You post an awful lot for someone who doesn't care.

It was a rhetoric question and i was just wondering why only my post caused such outraged that even people who wanted to see poor, burning victims of flamethrowers now don't confess to this :) So now I'm the only one sick bastard that has left :)

Assuming you mis-spoke and meant to say "opponent's soldiers" or "opponent's forces", it still isn't true. Killing pixeltruppen is the obvious and easy way to win (and design) scenarios, but there's othing intrinsic to the game that makes that absolutely necessary.

Yes opponent's soldier. Generally it boils down to this. And virtual dead bodies left after bombardment don't offend you so I still don't understand what's your problem.

Chess is a game too. Better yet, chess is a WARgame.

I don't know whats your point here but lets me explain something. Chess is definitley not a WARgame

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could really give a $hit what anyone that I'll never see online thinks about 'me' to be honest.

And I have no problems reading, you quoted me, but didn't say I posted it.

And I still wanna see them all writhing around on the ground. Anyone claiming the msg board is being degraded by my presence can shove it, because I'll argue back that I've been here since before BO so surely the message board is being degraded by their presence. And if they've been here longer I'll resort to nasty name calling, and questioning their testicular fortitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...