Barticus Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 No, NOT the Mattel Assault rifle! A thought struck me while sitting here at work (away from my library o'data). Has the American M16 AAA halftrack been included in Combat Mission? I can't recall ever having seen it listed anywhere. Bart ------------------ "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 No. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 No, but man would I love to get my hands on that meatgrinder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Barticus: No, NOT the Mattel Assault rifle! A thought struck me while sitting here at work (away from my library o'data). Has the American M16 AAA halftrack been included in Combat Mission? I can't recall ever having seen it listed anywhere. Bart Actually just AA, since AAA was cannons. The M16 was suppose to protect US forces from the Luftwaffe, but it never really did except for a few bridges, so it was used for long range antiinfantry fire. It carried a ton of ammunition, 4 .50 cal. mgs, and long range ground sites. Another vehicle used in 1945 which saw more combat than its small numbers would bely was the 40mm M19 AA gun. The 40mm was useful on defended houses and had long range ground sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted January 30, 2001 Author Share Posted January 30, 2001 Me most 'umble apologies master slapdaddy, errr, dragon. Actually, I hadn't intended that third A, but it slipped by me. Honest No, really! Any chances on getting it included in any upcoming patches? I suppose not, but MAN I love those things. Bart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by Barticus: Me most 'umble apologies master slapdaddy, errr, dragon. Actually, I hadn't intended that third A, but it slipped by me. Honest No, really! Any chances on getting it included in any upcoming patches? I suppose not, but MAN I love those things. Bart Nope: CM is, according to the powers that be, set in stone except for bug fixes. Have to wait for CMBO TNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Havermeyer- Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Failure to include this weapons is another clear indication of BTS's inherent Axis bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by -Havermeyer-: Failure to include this weapons is another clear indication of BTS's inherent Axis bias. Or, the damn thing would cost about 110 points and be death to halftracks and light armor fielded by the Axis. Actually I assume, on each side vehicles that would be neat did not make it, and some made it because it was no big deal to throw them in with another vehicle (Super Pershing, Flamm Hetzer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by -Havermeyer-: Failure to include this weapons is another clear indication of BTS's inherent Axis bias. Better put a smiley in there or you're gonna get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue... or until BTS produces the U.S. AA vehicles. Actually, this one bugs me a little. They were there. They weren't terribly rare. They were used. CM won't ever be complete, I know that, but this omission seems unusual for BTS. They've done so well with everything else. I'd pay for it! Who else? Mark ------------------ Scouts Out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 I can see why the M-16 wasn't included. My US halftracks armed with single .50s are already causing widespread panic amongst the German infantry. Imagine having a quad!! I feel it was a game balance issue. The only thing that erks me a bit was, and this has been trampled repeatedly before, the inclusion of the Ostwind and Puma. I'm sure some other far more common vehicles could of been included. Maybe the MkIII for earlier Italian battles or something. -Ski ------------------ "The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 Originally posted by -Havermeyer-: Failure to include this weapons is another clear indication of BTS's inherent Axis bias. I generally cannot agree with that. I will however say that the failure to include the M16 is a clear sign (dare I also say it?) that CMBO is not finished. I can hear people yelling "Heresy! Heresy! Burn him at the stake!" People who want CM2 right NOW!, are not going to like that. There are Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds. The Allies need a mobile AA vehicle like the M16 just to make things balanced, sice play balance is so important to CM. AND YES, I'd pay for it. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE CMBO. I'll definitely buy CM2, CM3, CM4, CMII, CMIII,.... I just cannot understand how such a glaring omission like this could've happened, especially when such dedication has been to applied to all of the other aspects of this great game. Its like having untouched canvas the size of your thumb in the middle Michelangelo's Mona Lisa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 The balance issue is one that nettles any game designer. The recent debate over the changes in version 1.1 are evidence of that. Nonetheless, the BTS tackled the issue head-on, and supported their decisions with their usual thorough research and thoughtful analysis. It seems to me they could do just as well with the U.S. AA vehicles. Perhaps it's a matter of time and resources, but I believe enough of us would pay for a vehicle/equipment expansion pack so as to make it worth their while. I don't feel as though CMBO will be complete for me until those vehicles are included. Anyone else? Mark ------------------ Scouts Out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 how do you say in english? "a dollar short and a minute late"? this topic ("lack of M16 HT") has been discussed to death several times over, and before you continue your speculation, yes there has already been an official statement by BTS on WHY they are not included in CMBO. if you are interested read one of the later M16 - threads: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015418.html ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually just AA, since AAA was cannons. Actually, if you want to get really pedantic, it should be AAMG. But I agree, the omission of the M16 was a major oversight. They were fairly common and they did get used in the ground role. I expect there are other weapons/vehicles/units with a claim to inclusion in the game, but few better than the M16. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: how do you say in english? "a dollar short and a minute late"? this topic ("lack of M16 HT") has been discussed to death several times over, and before you continue your speculation, yes there has already been an official statement by BTS on WHY they are not included in CMBO. if you are interested read one of the later M16 - threads: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015418.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Well that explains why the M16 didn't make it in the original release of CMBO. But that's not the issue now. Is there a definitive statement on why BTS won't come out with this one (and perhaps a few others) through a patch? My opinion: the M16 will not be 'discussed to death' until BTS produces the goods. It's a fun enough vehicle, and its inclusion is well justified. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Oh well. I still think that......... -Ski ------------------ "The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Is there a definitive statement on why BTS won't come out with this one (and perhaps a few others) through a patch? Yes. And the answer is simply "CM2". That's what they are working on now and nothing else. Steve has said in several posts that CM is a finished product. It's DONE. Other than minor patches for tweaks there will be no more additions. My opinion: the M16 will not be 'discussed to death' until BTS produces the goods. Well, you can have whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they're not going to add it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by Shep: Well that explains why the M16 didn't make it in the original release of CMBO. But that's not the issue now. Is there a definitive statement on why BTS won't come out with this one (and perhaps a few others) through a patch? My opinion: the M16 will not be 'discussed to death' until BTS produces the goods. It's a fun enough vehicle, and its inclusion is well justified. Mark Except: If it takes 2 weeks from go to build it, removing BTS from the work of CM2, is it worth it right this second? AND, the inclusion of any powerful allied vehicle will raise howls amongst a small minority of the customers who will expect a tit-for-tat German vehicle, or who will think the M16 will dominate the game. Basically, the US is missing the M16, the M19, the M37, various high speed tractors, and an endless list of other vehicles. I am not saying I would not want the M16 in the game, just that being realistic the furor of its inclusion and the time it would take may not be worth it at this time. Maybe later or for CMII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 I figured that BTS wasn't going to work on the AA vehicles until after the TCP/IP because they had given their word regarding that. It wouldn't have been right for them to do so until such time as they had finished it. And I also know that BTS has to weigh their customer base regarding this sort of thing. It is inevitable that the clamor for CM2 is going to far out-decibal the occasional peep for the significant missing vehicles. That's realistic enough, I think. But I know them as good guys who listen; they've listened to me and hundreds of other guys, and they've made changes and even marketing decisions based on what we've had to say. I have my name on a tiny bit of code in CM. It may be a poor business decision to invest time and effort in a few missing vehicles, though I suspect not - if they choose to make money off it, they will. It may be a decision that offends more of this community than it pleases, but that's not the criteria that Steve and Charles employ about this great game. They have the courage to face a majority in dissent, and by golly they've done it. In essence, they made the game, and they've done the gaming community a long lasting service by doing so. CM has changed so much about wargaming, I can hardly begin to recite the list. I hardly feel justified in demanding anything from them. It's not my game, and not my company, though I've been a faithful customer of BTS long before CM ever came along, and I've promoted them and their vision, and I've been responsible for some sales... I'll keep on doing that regardless. I guess every successful company owes something to their customers, but BTS has gone so far beyond what the rank and file game developers have ever done - well what can I say? Any request on my part may well fall on deaf ears. It doesn't stop me from wanting just a handful of those vehicles, and thinking that it's right for them to be in the game. And furthermore believing that there's enough guys out there who would buy them that it would be worth it for BTS to do so. I haven't really brought the issue up before this time because it seemed to me that the timing wasn't right. Now that the TCP/IP patch is done, and the work is turning toward CM2, it seems like a quick detour would not be completely out of order. BTS, I'd love for you to reconsider! Mark ------------------ Scouts Out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 For what it's worth - Posted 1/10/01 by Steve. Yes, work on CMBO is basically done. We will keep an eye out for any serious bugs (not just "gee,I think this should be tweaked"), which we will fix, but other than that we are starting on CM2 very shortly. We are first going to figure out what exactly we are going to put into the thing, THEN we will actually start the coding and artwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 LOL!! havermeyer. What about Pz-III not included or Sd.Kfz 251/10 or...or. They just didnt include all...something wrong with that? Btw. If Super Pershing(was quite rare to see combat at least) is included there cant be much axis bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 And sure M16 and M19 should get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted January 31, 2001 Share Posted January 31, 2001 I get the feeling that there is some impatience already brewing for CM2. The TCP/IP thing took much longer than expected. I expect to be looking down the barrel of a T34/85 about this time next year. So consider this: The last time there was a new vehicle in CM was May - with the release of CM 1.0... And this: It's going to be a good long stretch before we see a CM2 demo, IF BTS decides to release one. I'd love to see that just like the rest of y'all. But if BTS releases a smattering of vehicles next month, it serves well to refresh the game for all of us. New tactics in offense and defense will have to be forged on the CM battlefield; new discussion, heated discussion about the proper use of such vehicles; we get to see the 'meatchopper' live up to its name; and etc. Not a bad strategic decision as we go through a long dry spell with nothing new under the sun. Mark ------------------ Scouts Out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts