Jump to content

Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread


Recommended Posts

i hate you too lacroix. thanks for showing everyone else how right i was when i started trashing you for your idiot comments about women in the kitchen months ago. I mean with your maturity level hiding messages like steve is evil dictator house of martyrs and i hate ianl sublime and womble how could anyone fail to see your genius. its obvious you got banned because bfc felt threatened by your greatness

 

I thought initially that it was sburke who posted the image because Lacroix used his avatar. I thought it was some kind of ironic joke, that' s why i gave it +1.

Edited by agusto
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Made this as a joke out of boredom.      

Okay, I lied.  One more picture.  While trying to decide what scenario to do an AAR on, I found I needed to really tweak stuff around to get nighttime looking good. Video here: https://i.img

Another poster of my recent BMP-3/3K Mod: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=6650

Posted Images

Protip:

When re-infiltrating a forum you've been banned from, do try to make it less obvious that its you.  Or wait a few weeks and then return a bit less belligerent.  

 

Unless it's a French run forum, and you were booted after pointing out once the French army finds a way to surrender to Penguins and Kangaroos* they'll have lost a war on every continent. Then you're pretty much hosed.   

 

 

*Of course if you count Austrialia as part of Oceania instead of as a stand alone, its down to just penguins.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's a French run forum, and you were booted after pointing out once the French army finds a way to surrender to Penguins and Kangaroos* they'll have lost a war on every continent. Then you're pretty much hosed.  

 

:D

 

The french army surrendering to each and everybody is a common meme on the internet, but actully they are quite capable. I recently saw a documentary on the French SF operating in Mali and they appeared very professional to me.

 

More importantly, the FAMAS is a really looking rifle. I hope we' ll see it in one of the CMBS modules.

 

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iOdMN-HoKP8/maxresdefault.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a CPX (command post exercise, so all the commanders, none of the actual troops) with the French back in 2011.  Good guys, seemed quite intelligent.  There was an interesting sort of cultural difference, I wouldn't say theirs was better or worse, simply different.  I'd work with them again in a heartbeat.

 

With that said, on that forum I was speaking to French military fanboys, most of whom were insufferable and had little or no real understanding of the sort of things they were claiming.  I eventually got frustrated because while the French military is certainly capable....the whole "well, we are zee french and french quality is 100X American quality and Americans are cowboys dumbys/Americans run hollywood which inflate American capabilities and we are superior" line of reasoning was enough for me to stoop to the fun, if immature comments about the French record when it comes to handling German infestations, or the colonies they've been kicked out of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

The french army surrendering to each and everybody is a common meme on the internet, but actully they are quite capable. I recently saw a documentary on the French SF operating in Mali and they appeared very professional to me.

More importantly, the FAMAS is a really looking rifle. I hope we' ll see it in one of the CMBS modules.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iOdMN-HoKP8/maxresdefault.jpg

Is there a "PUN" on the butt of that FAMAS? LOL.

EDIT:By the way, the mag looks like the one they had before changing to a NATO compatible STANAG magazine.

Edited by Abdolmartin
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a CPX (command post exercise, so all the commanders, none of the actual troops) with the French back in 2011.  Good guys, seemed quite intelligent.  There was an interesting sort of cultural difference, I wouldn't say theirs was better or worse, simply different.  I'd work with them again in a heartbeat.

 

With that said, on that forum I was speaking to French military fanboys, most of whom were insufferable and had little or no real understanding of the sort of things they were claiming.  I eventually got frustrated because while the French military is certainly capable....the whole "well, we are zee french and french quality is 100X American quality and Americans are cowboys dumbys/Americans run hollywood which inflate American capabilities and we are superior" line of reasoning was enough for me to stoop to the fun, if immature comments about the French record when it comes to handling German infestations, or the colonies they've been kicked out of.

 

I think that in general the militaries of most of the major Western powers are compareable in terms of quality. Germany, France, Britain, the US, Spain (maybe, i am not particularily well informed regrading Spain), Italy and interestingly, given the current financial situation of the country, Greece too. Greece has an amazingly large force of modern MBTs, actually they have about twice as many Leopard 2 as the Germans, besides their 500 Leopard 1s AND their 400 M48s AND their 300 M60s! Germany currently only has about 150 operational Leopard 2s. It' s quite ironic, Germany lends money to Greece and Greece uses that money to buy more Leopard 2s from Germany :D. Of course that' s a simplification of a complex matter, but the thought does amuse me.

Edited by agusto
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that in general the militaries of most of the major Western powers are compareable in terms of quality. Germany, France, Britain, the US, Spain (maybe, i am not particularily well informed regrading Spain), Italy and interestingly, given the current financial situation of the country, Greece too. Greece has an amazingly large force of modern MBTs, actually they have about twice as many Leopard 2 as the Germans, besides their 500 Leopard 1s AND their 400 M48s AND their 300 M60s! Germany currently only has about 150 operational Leopard 2s. It' s quite ironic, Germany lends money to Greece and Greece uses that money to buy more Leopard 2s from Germany  :D. Of course that' s a simplification of a complex matter, but the thought does amuse me.

 

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.

 

That said:

 

 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:

 

1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)

 

2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  

 

While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  

 

No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.

 

3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).

 

You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*

 

 

*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift

 

Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

From recent PBEM match. Armored game against US mech is always difficult. 

 

0u5aXpL.jpg

Redfor graveyard

 

a8Ku9Tb.jpg

Blufor graveyard

 

FG3Fyce.jpg

His nickname wasn't true, but did the most serious damage to my forces. 

 

MskpYE7.jpg

This guy was also pain in the ass, claiming 4 tanks. 

 

RhAlU9D.jpg

Lucky AT-15 kill

 

kkQwbTS.jpg

This guy tanked total 6~7 AT-15, with frontal armor + APS. But eventually, couldn't took them more. 

 

estGfzi.jpg

This T-90 bravely sacrificed himself to save the flank, with one very important Abrams kill. 

 

UWUspbQ.jpg

Khrizantema graveyard. Escorting T-90s tried their best, but their optics were not good enough to see them coming. And DU frontal armor was too damn thick 

 

coi1BWd.jpg

Hero tank

 

UgdKf4q.jpg

Hero Khriz 

 

Playing Ru army in CMBS OBEM is fun, but sometimes I feel myself why am I torturing myself :P Still I believe that all Rus vehicles in game (and UA vehicles too if needed) need a bit of price discount. (Though I don't think that will be realized) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With that said, on that forum I was speaking to French military fanboys, most of whom were insufferable and had little or no real understanding of the sort of things they were claiming.  I eventually got frustrated because while the French military is certainly capable....the whole "well, we are zee french and french quality is 100X American quality and Americans are cowboys dumbys/Americans run hollywood which inflate American capabilities and we are superior" line of reasoning was enough for me to stoop to the fun, if immature comments about the French record when it comes to handling German infestations, or the colonies they've been kicked out of.

I can only imagine the number of times in their lives those guys have been confronted by the American versions of those same lines. "Haha American stuff is 1000x better to save you from the Germans with and and the Europeans are all prissy croissant eating fags who blow off good military spending on welfare lolololol".

Contention only breeds more contention sadly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only imagine the number of times in their lives those guys have been confronted by the American versions of those same lines. "Haha American stuff is 1000x better to save you from the Germans with and and the Europeans are all prissy croissant eating fags who blow off good military spending on welfare lolololol".

Contention only breeds more contention sadly.

 

Sure does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Cost

 

Think it's part of the game is trying to figure out how to make your stuff work against something that's bigger and angrier than you.  I don't play much Russian stuff but seems like I couldn't afford to stack Shermans until infinity against Tigers and the like in CMBN.  If you really want to stack it more in one direction there's always the force adjustment option rolling into a QB.  

 

Re: Angry French people.

 

I used to think like you, but after:

 

1. Dealing with someone claiming France didn't really lose in 1940, but it was all political (then going onto a very delusional scenario in which France holds out in Southern France supported by the colonies/how massively effective the French Air Force and Navy was)

2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.  Also there should be lots of Leclercs in a game set in 1991.

3. The American infantry in the game being discussed is bad, but that's okay because that's realistic and believing otherwise is simply a result of watching too many movies from hollywood (note, this was the community liaison guy from the company that made the game).  

 

I sort of lost my desire to be rational.  If I'm going to offend folks who are that wrong, I do not feel any sense of remorse.  If it'd been an American pig-dog claiming similar stuff I'd have made fun of them just as hard.  Just happened I mocked France on a frogeating surrender team owned forum.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.  

 

Well, if we take T-55's in their 1958 form, line them up in plain field at about 1000m, then maybe we can get something like 22 kills in 2 minutes.  :lol:

Edited by BTR
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Cost

 

Think it's part of the game is trying to figure out how to make your stuff work against something that's bigger and angrier than you.  I don't play much Russian stuff but seems like I couldn't afford to stack Shermans until infinity against Tigers and the like in CMBN.  If you really want to stack it more in one direction there's always the force adjustment option rolling into a QB.  

 

Re: Angry French people.

 

I used to think like you, but after:

 

1. Dealing with someone claiming France didn't really lose in 1940, but it was all political (then going onto a very delusional scenario in which France holds out in Southern France supported by the colonies/how massively effective the French Air Force and Navy was)

2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.  Also there should be lots of Leclercs in a game set in 1991.

3. The American infantry in the game being discussed is bad, but that's okay because that's realistic and believing otherwise is simply a result of watching too many movies from hollywood (note, this was the community liaison guy from the company that made the game).  

 

I sort of lost my desire to be rational.  If I'm going to offend folks who are that wrong, I do not feel any sense of remorse.  If it'd been an American pig-dog claiming similar stuff I'd have made fun of them just as hard.  Just happened I mocked France on a frogeating surrender team owned forum.

Obviously you're talking about Wargame and Eugen Systems. Those guys have taken bias to a whole new level. With their Rafale super fighters and stuff. And the US airforce being inferior to the Soviets and even the French. The level of logic in their design choices was so high, that in a 1991 game, the Soviets had tons of R-77s while the US had mostly AIM-9s. And the R-73 was equal in capability to AIM-9M. And US infantry was so dumbed down that I just couldn't tolerate the stupid stuff going on and stopped playing that game after a while. I mean, the idea is great, the engine is fine, the design on units and the logic of the makers are complete show-stoppers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you're talking about Wargame and Eugen Systems. Those guys have taken bias to a whole new level. With their Rafale super fighters and stuff. And the US airforce being inferior to the Soviets and even the French. The level of logic in their design choices was so high, that in a 1991 game, the Soviets had tons of R-77s while the US had mostly AIM-9s. And the R-73 was equal in capability to AIM-9M. And US infantry was so dumbed down that I just couldn't tolerate the stupid stuff going on and stopped playing that game after a while. I mean, the idea is great, the engine is fine, the design on units and the logic of the makers are complete show-stoppers.

 

Yeah the superiority of the French and the way deck system complemented any of their builds really hacked me off in Red Dragon, it was bad in ALB, but RD really took the effing biscuit.

Still it was a good game though, got hella playtime out of the series. It had much better MP functionality and capability than CM ever will.

Edited by Stagler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.  Red Dragon was pretty much the pits.  Like EE sold me on the series, ALB was broken in a few ways, but seemed to promise the third game being great...but then it was just ALB with new faults and a whole additional level of stupid. 

 

Not to brown nose too much but like, there's a lot that can be wonky with CM, but I'm willing to accept wonky because it's a small niche product.  There's a lot I'd like to see done better, but again, it feels like it's on par for a super-small company, and when stuff is broken (vs "on a budget") I feel reasonably confident that even 5-6 years after release, Battlefront will still fix it. My experience with the Wargames series was of a slicker, better produced product that contained amazingly broken features, and dare I say pride in not fixing some of the terribad stuff, and sort of a "it is broken but we have your money" mentality.  

So yeah, better UI, more functional MP, a less arcane purchasing process, and better special effects would be sweet.  Also maybe dynamic weather.  But I'll still be flinging money at Battlefront as long as they keep letting me grind things into pulp with Shermans and Abrams (maybe M60A3s and Pershings too?  Please?), while I am fairly certain I will not be purchasing another Eugen product.

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.  Red Dragon was pretty much the pits.  Like EE sold me on the series, ALB was broken in a few ways, but seemed to promise the third game being great...but then it was just ALB with new faults and a whole additional level of stupid. 

 

Not to brown nose too much but like, there's a lot that can be wonky with CM, but I'm willing to accept wonky because it's a small niche product.  There's a lot I'd like to see done better, but again, it feels like it's on par for a super-small company, and when stuff is broken (vs "on a budget") I feel reasonably confident that even 5-6 years after release, Battlefront will still fix it. My experience with the Wargames series was of a slicker, better produced product that contained amazingly broken features, and dare I say pride in not fixing some of the terribad stuff, and sort of a "it is broken but we have your money" mentality.  

So yeah, better UI, more functional MP, a less arcane purchasing process, and better special effects would be sweet.  Also maybe dynamic weather.  But I'll still be flinging money at Battlefront as long as they keep letting me grind things into pulp with Shermans and Abrams (maybe M60A3s and Pershings too?  Please?), while I am fairly certain I will not be purchasing another Eugen product.

 

Id like to see changing weather throughout the mission, if there was settings for like light rain -> overcast, and vice versa, and randomly pick a time during the allotted time of the QB for the rain to start it would make things more interesting.

 

I wasn't on about the gameplay, I was simply on about how the lobby worked with the chat system and the matchmaking game capability and custom games rooms.

 

I also wont be getting Act of Aggression.

Edited by Stagler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well really an hour of heavy rain is going to greatly modify the battlefield.  So having it start off with small showers then go to downpour, with the terrain becoming less passable as time went on would be a cool dynamic, or having fog for the first 20 minutes of the battle that lifts as the day heats up would be neat.

 

Better multiplayer functionality would be cool for sure.  It does feel more like something that's a matter of resource allocation vs Eugen style in which artillery is  your most effective anti-helicopter tool, or the M60A1 ERA looks like it was modeled by a handicapped small child.

 

Act of Aggression looks like a 1999 era RTS, without any of the legitimate wackiness that made the C&C games fun.  Maybe if they added in battle dolphins and the plot twist for SP is that the real bad guys are the Greeks or something (they cannot pay back the IMF because they're building battle robots under the acropolis!) it'd be better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Re: Angry French people.

 

I used to think like you, but after:

 

1. Dealing with someone claiming France didn't really lose in 1940, but it was all political (then going onto a very delusional scenario in which France holds out in Southern France supported by the colonies/how massively effective the French Air Force and Navy was)

2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.  Also there should be lots of Leclercs in a game set in 1991.

3. The American infantry in the game being discussed is bad, but that's okay because that's realistic and believing otherwise is simply a result of watching too many movies from hollywood (note, this was the community liaison guy from the company that made the game).  

 

I sort of lost my desire to be rational.  If I'm going to offend folks who are that wrong, I do not feel any sense of remorse.  If it'd been an American pig-dog claiming similar stuff I'd have made fun of them just as hard.  Just happened I mocked France on a frogeating surrender team owned forum.  

 

People on the internet say crazy things sure enough. Somehow I don't think that is unique to the French though. The joke to me about French/American relations has always been the mirror of the two country's egos. Americans are so used to exporting their culture, power, and egos to the rest of the world that when we encounter a people who are just as narcissistic as us we're expected to feel contempt. Those people are too proud, too confident, and too arrogant! Not us no. But them yeah.

 

Anyway the real crux of all this  to me is that so few have figured out that arguing with the polarized tends to just make them more polarized. It's like the whole issue with the Confederate Flag lately and how banning that flag is somehow supposed to convince the people who wave it to suddenly stop seeing it as a sign of strength and actually as a deep-seated symbol of their emotional and cultural insecurities. Like confronting extremists head on has ever made them less extreme and doesn't just play right into their hands.

 

 

 

Act of Aggression looks like a 1999 era RTS, without any of the legitimate wackiness that made the C&C games fun.  Maybe if they added in battle dolphins and the plot twist for SP is that the real bad guys are the Greeks or something (they cannot pay back the IMF because they're building battle robots under the acropolis!) it'd be better.  

 

God I can't get over how awful it looks either. 1999 is putting it optimistically I think, the developers were talking about "going back to the roots of RTS games" in an interview somewhere. Translated into english that basically means they're making the game as anachronistic as they possibly can.  

Edited by CaptHawkeye
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...