John Kettler Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 MD, Fair cop! Missed that one. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by Simon Fox: No.74, No.75, No.68 even No.82 consigned to impotency. Not to mention No.36 cup discharger Let's see ... 1) The 68, 74, 75, and 82 are all British A-Tk grenades, 2) The British had a range of A-Tk grenades, of varying usefulness and effectiveness, 3) The British also had a rifle-grenade launcher/adaptor, 4) All these things were used in combat during WWII by CW forces, with varying degrees of effectiveness, 5) Some British and most CW forces saw service in the Med, 6) The Med is the theatre that is (mostly) covered by CMAK, 7) CMAK contains British and CW forces, 8) British and CW forces in CMAK have no such capability as would be implied by 1) - 5) above, 9) BFC either didn't know about them and so excluded them by oversight, but effectively consigned them impotency, or 10) BFC did know about them, but decided that they weren't worth modelling for whatever reason and so deliberately consigned them to impotency. How'd I do? JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 You're line of reasoning is impeccable Jon. It's a pity the guys at BFC don't appear to be listening judging by the lack of response to date. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 i will continue to support bfc and like these games, but i find it annoying that the axis has a change of clothes for every day and different sleeves, armor and vehicles for every engineering change, paint scheme, small arms and rare equipment. how many icons on 11240 bmp, portrait slots etc. oh, we will need some allies to fight. no room on a cd, well the cw all have the same stuff. couple of usa and we are done. off my soapbox for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Maybe because most of them were done for cmbb already, and all the Allied stuff had to be redone from scratch? naaaaaa...couldn't be that. Also, believe it or not, the guys don't live here. If they dont answer a post might mean they aren't around at the moment, as they have lives. I can't believe if they don't stop in and answer every thread there is a general whining. Enough already. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by rune: Maybe because most of them were done for cmbb already, and all the Allied stuff had to be redone from scratch? naaaaaa...couldn't be that.Really. I was under the impression we were paying customers. I do remember giving a credit card number when purchasing CM:AK. I would have expected the research on Canadian, British, South African, Australian and New Zealand troops to have been at least on a par as that done for Romania or Hungary in CMBB. Many on this board have offered advice and sources. Also, believe it or not, the guys don't live here. If they dont answer a post might mean they aren't around at the moment,Not one single response to the "official" patch and bug thread that has been running for how many weeks now? Though I did notice the Spanish CM:AK mod thread got the courtesy of a sticky despite only a dozen responses in about a month's time. as they have lives. Yes, and our money. I can't believe if they don't stop in and answer every thread there is a general whining. Enough already.I quite agree. A response to the "official" bug report thread might be nice. It was started as a courtesy to help simplify matters for them, based on what the community saw as problematic. While I wouldn't expect BFC to sit down and argue every one of Mark Gallear's points down to the last paragraph of source, a simple "thank you" would have done wonders for our collective morale. Of course, the more these "little" irritants crop up, the more annoying it gets to those of us who have given our support in more ways than just through the pocket book. I think this goes beyond the "I can't win with Shermans so CMBO is crap" stuff. We are talking about major omissions and errors in the order of battle which will affect playability, not just the laundry lists of the grogs' favourite esoteric equipment. I can live without AA Brens, but to delete entire categories of anti-tank weapons makes the CW guys not only less playable, but harder to design accurate scenarios for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 my point was that the games are biased toward fans of the axis. compare the number of icons in 11240 for cmbo, cmbb and cmak. granted bb was a leap forward from experience gained. look at how many russian variants. now look at cmak's allied icons and all the empty spaces. we have an icon for usa mountain troops and mechanised but no portraits. and still no answer on my airborne question 10feb04. (rangers, darby's rangers, fssf in north italy but nothing but reg. inf. till 1/45 lw) they gave the romanians in bb axis and allied uniforms, why not vichy french and free french? yeah i know they were not a factor in the med (francofans might argue) maybe i could count the bmps and see that bb and ak are the same. maybe there isnt room in the game for more allies. maybe allied players will buy anything so dont worry about them. it's still a good game and nothing else like it. too bad it isnt better. and it is just a game, my life will go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I quite agree. A response to the "official" bug report thread might be nice. It was started as a courtesy to help simplify matters for them, based on what the community saw as problematic. While I wouldn't expect BFC to sit down and argue every one of Mark Gallear's points down to the last paragraph of source, a simple "thank you" would have done wonders for our collective morale.I am suprised that it has taken you this long to recognize that this is the current modus operandi and has been for some time. The only affirmation or acknowledgement you're likely to get is the appearance of your suggestion in the next patch, whenever and if ever that occurs. I am afraid that it is likely to be the only indication that it was considered well reasoned enough to be included. I entirely understand that it could be quite frustrating trawling through endless sources and collecting evidence all the while ignorant of whether you're completely wasting your time. I guess it's just a question of weighing up what you prefer to spend your time on and what you hope or expect to get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 On the contrary, Simon, I've seen this same reaction when others have gotten it, but I've always put them in the same camp as Lewis/Username, or else didn't have a true grounding in the subject as, say, some of the artillery grogs or armour plate grogs, etc., and let it pass me by, but yes, it is certainly eye opening. It's pretty much why I haven't bothered trying to update the original post to the thread, it was made clear ago that our input is "not required." I think junk2drive's comments are a little unfortunate, as some of the same reasoning when CMBO came out was, in my opinion, petty and "why can't the Allies win" or "why is CMBO Axis biased" arguments didn't really impress me much. I can live without Vichy French but I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder. Were the British grenades really all that esoteric in terms of actual issue? I'm certainly no expert. Perhaps a game as detailed as this is doomed to controversy by its very level of detail and inability of any sane publisher to justify every decision made without resorting to a phone book sized index of sources and references. But for the record, while I'm pleased with the force mixes, etc., I do believe the Commonwealth representation was entirely uneven, and perhaps even poorly researched. The errors in the latest release of scenarios, particularly the two within my area of expertise, just suggest a distancing from the fan base and is why I won't be spending my money on this latest announced product, the book. It is of little satisfaction to see the paucity of responses to the news of the release, more disappointing is the lack of honest discussion and fan input we've been allowed regarding the next patch - and apparent lack of interest on the part of BFC on as much as acknowledging the discord. I would expect that from my superiors in the military, not a "ma and pa" operation we've all supported faithfully for four years or so. [ March 19, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Anybody has an idea why Gammon bombs were in CMBO and were now dropped? Rune, this is also in response to your post, while CMAK was a "small-step" instance of the CM1 engine (and is priced accordingly) and less new development was announced to happen, this still doesn't apply to the Commonwealth squad AT weapons, because they were in CMBO. Furthermore, an abstratced squad AT weapon without any graphical representation and basically the same mechanism as grenades and already existing squad AT weapons have will hardly be a major software engineering problem as -say- multi-turreted tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> as they have lives. Yes, and our money.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well I'm with JonS and supporters. The apparent neglect of NA Commonwealth modelling is shabby to say the least but will have a look further to see just how far this goes before going off half cocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 21, 2004 Author Share Posted March 21, 2004 Originally posted by sand digger: Well I'm with JonS and supporters. The apparent neglect of NA Commonwealth modelling is shabby to say the least but will have a look further to see just how far this goes before going off half cocked. Was this a reference to anyone in particular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: Anybody has an idea why Gammon bombs were in CMBO and were now dropped?IIRC, GBs were only available to UK Para sections in CMBO. Regular infantry sections got nothing. So, in that sense, I suppose CMAK is being entirely consistent with the modelling in the earlier CMBO. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Maybe so Jon, but is it right? That seems to be the question on every one's lips. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 There's one other squad level AT weapon omission yr overlooking. IIRC, in CMBO it was possible to assign satchel charges to regular infantry squads. This seems to have been disabled in CMAK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Maybe so Jon, but is it right?I wasn't talking about correctness, I was talking about consistency Besides, vL is correct. I just went and had a play in the editors: CMBO * CW infantry sections can have demo charges * CW airborne and para sections can have gammon bombs CMAK * CW infantry sections cannot have demo charges * CW airborne and para sections cannot have gammon bombs Dates checked: July and Dec 1943, and Apr 45 for all available CW inf types. I've never seen DCs available for CW inf, and I haven't played much with the UK Airborne so I'm not really sure when they are available. As a side note, I specifically checked the South Africans, to see whether they had DCs or sumfink available. They are the only CW nation in CMAKL that managed to hold on to their Thompson SMGs, so I thought they might also have managed to obtain some DCs, but no. Anyway, it would appear that the modelling of CW infantry and para sections in CM has managed to go backwards as the series has progressed, which is rather unfortunate. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlatCmdr Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Still suprised with the lack of response by BFC given the length of discussion here. Perhaps this is a case of, "We've gone retail, and no longer need to cater to the minority opinion no matter the validity of the criticism." I sure hope not, as their involvement with user input in the past has been a unique and admirable quality of this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by PlatCmdr: Still suprised with the lack of response by BFC given the length of discussion here. Perhaps this is a case of, "We've gone retail, and no longer need to cater to the minority opinion no matter the validity of the criticism." I sure hope not, as their involvement with user input in the past has been a unique and admirable quality of this game. I would guess that since usually there is a lot of discussion from the boys of BFC on topics like this, and the last few months there hasn't been, instead just occasional frustrated notes of "we're reading it", and that the moderation of the General Forum of late has been relatively cursory and curt, that the following is true: They are really, really, really freaking busy of late. Yes, even too busy to alight in each "bug/request/clarification" thread and sprinkle magic fairy dust and tap JonS and Kanonier Reichmann on the head with their wands. Or maybe they're all packed into Steve's Weasel on a five-state "let's order shushi and not pay for it" spree. Of the two, I choose "really, really freaking busy". But that's me. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Have now located an original primary source on weapons and ammo use during El Alamein 2 for 9 Div, the Quarter Master General returns. Relevant to this topic, a 37mm spigot mortar using both HE and anti tank ammo is mentioned as is a #73 anti tank grenade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Your guess, dale, is as good as the next mans. Customer service is as customer service does. BFCs used to be exemplary, and IIRC they actually encouraged these kinds of threads. YMMV, and apparently it does. BTW, I don't appreciate your characterisation of me in your last post. I feel that I have been polite about this stuff, and if I've been repetitive and insistent*, it is in large part because of the lack of response which you are happy to rationalise away. How am I supposed know if I've been clear enough? Convincing enough? See the second paragraph of Simons post above. I wish you the best in never finding something you don't like, and being confronted with a wall of silence. Be cool JonS * and my posting on them has been limited to a grand total of three threads, one of which is a 'Part II'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Good things come to those who wait ... Originally posted by sand digger: Have now located an original primary source on weapons and ammo use during El Alamein 2 for 9 Div, the Quarter Master General returns. Relevant to this topic, a 37mm spigot mortar using both HE and anti tank ammo is mentioned ... Old CMBB thread Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Fascinating stuff Jon with that old thread. It appears the spigot mortar was an early version of the redoubtable PIAT. When was this again? Mid to late 1942? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by dalem: instead just occasional frustrated notes of "we're reading it"Really? BFC has indicated they are reading the notes on bugs and corrections? I've seen no evidence of that, can you point me to the posts in question? Given that the entire point of my original thread was to make one topic and one list which they could easily reference, very baffling to have absolutely no response whatsoever to it. Of course, this is not anything so important as the markings on a Y Wing, of course... :-P [ March 22, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts