s3333cr333tz Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Im not going to "pretend" to be a grog, my interest in ww2 is probably no less than any true "grogs" but im just a youngin and havent had the decades to absorb the info these real "grogs" have /wink ;p That said, I think it is fairly obvious that the fighting carried out by some divisions or nations was done so at a more fanatical/desperate level. The Hitler Jugend SS division in and around Caen, anyone who cares to refute that these were totally indoctrinated nut cases willing to follow any order the Fuhrer gave them would have a hard time convincing me. This follows a progression to the Japanese people. Japanese culture in that time period is about as alien to westerners as you can get. They were born and raised to obey their emperor. Now obviously not every japanese soldier you ran into was wild eyed, just looking for a platoon of GIs to bonzai into. However when your entire life has been based around discipline and conformity, when you're told to jump, 9 out of 10 will probably say how high. Now if we extrapolate this into the circumstances in the Imperial Army. I think you will find that the average japanese soldier is going to be more willing to fight to the death in a hopeless situation in any effort to kill another GI, than in any other theater. I think its fairly reasonable to suggest that the infantry fighting in the PTO was more viscious, lets not confuse viscious with lethal. A bullet in Iwo Jima or Okinawa had just as much ability to kill the heck out of you as a bullet in any other theater. I think visciousness in this case was the intent behind those bullets, the reluctance to surrender in hopeless situations, and the willingness to throw your life away needlessly. Was the fighting any harder? Probably not. The fighting just went to further limits. The japanese were just less likely to surrender than anyone else. Desperation can make men or women wildly unpredictable. They can and will do incredibly brave and stupid things in an act of desperation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I would love to recreate Kohima and the fighting in Burma\India.Plus it would'nt be too hard to do landing craft would it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzerman: BFC has in the past hinted that they aren't really interested, nor have the knowledge of it, to cover the Pacific Theater. They didn't hint. That was a straight statement </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveT Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Yea, what she said. Dave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimorocca Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I repost here my humble idea. I saw the PTO debate raising again. It's weird. We have customers, a lot seems, that called for this expasion pack and a company that refused to do it not because they think that isn't a good business(or I missed this statement), but because they are not interested into this branch of the knowledge. May be the answer could be a franchising? If and "only if" there are enough customers, and with the forum a referendum could be easily done, to make the business profitable, I see two chances. 1) the most radical. Lend the code (it's now obsolete because BTF has no will to exploit it again) to some programmers bunch to made an expansion that will be not only a "mod". No job for BTF and moderate income for' em 2) the intermediate. There is a lot of guys around that are so Pacific biased as the BTF crew are for ETO, and that can do all the crude work of research. Absorb' em, like the betatesters, the modders, or like the scenario and campaign developers are in other games (I just finished to help Wild Bill Wilder in a new exciting Mega Campaign for SPWAW that Matrixgames is ready to sell). When finished BTF could fill the code with the new data. (BTW having the raw data ready for the new engine). More job but better income. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by Kitty: I would suggest that they obtain the help of those that DO have the knowledege of this theater and make the game. There are quite a few people out there with the knowledge.It's not so much lack of knowledge as it is their lack of interest in the subject. In fact, judging from various comments made by Steve in the past, I'd say you're more likely to see BFC do a sci-fi game than the PTO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by EZPickens: As I've said before, this a tanker's game.Then you have been wrong before 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 This isn't just about making money. BFC have said that they've got no interest in the Pacific theatre and aren't going to make it. When you're in the position that BFC are in you get to make what you want to make, and they don't want to make a pacific theatre game no matter how much money it might bring in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 People, Work will proceed on the next engine, there is NO plan for a PTO under the current engine. The code will not be released to anyone, since it would take as much time to get someone up to speed as it would to code it. You just don't find a brain in the jar just laying around you know. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Rune, don't you mean you just don't find ANOTHER brian in a jar laying around? <Like a moth drawn to a brighter flame> Hey did someone mention early war blitzkrieg? Yeah, what about that! I want my polish cavalry! I want my Soumas! I want GD40! Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Interesting that Rune wrote "...under the current engine." Time will only tell if we get a PTO version under the new engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZPickens Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EZPickens: As I've said before, this a tanker's game.Then you have been wrong before </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by rune: Work will proceed on the next engine, there is NO plan for a PTO under the current engine... You just don't find a brain in the jar just laying around you know.CM has been great, but it's now time to focus on the new engine. PTO would be nice, but an expanded and improved CM is more important, IMHO. BTW, what size jar does Charles use? [ December 09, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Battaglia Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by EZPickens: There's already a superior infantry combat system in place, for that matter.Are you talking about CC?? I think you mentioned it in a previous post. That's your opinion (to which you're entitled), but a lot of people would strongly disagree with that statement. It is hardly something you can just throw out unsupported and expect to become fact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZPickens Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 You're right, Major B, its just my opinion; Its a personal preference of mine. My enjoyment of CM is inversely proportional to the level of infantry combat involved. I despise the micro-plotting involved with, perhaps, dozens of leaders, squads and crews. Its just too damn tedious to be rewarding. Close Combat fails as an armor game, IMO. The fewer the tanks in that game, the better. One or two makes for an interesting tactical problem. Ten or so, is kind of laughable, what with the lousy AI pathing for vehicles. Right now, I am thoroughly enjoyng CMAK. It allows me to simulate tank actions between British armoured formations and German KG (armour & PAK combos) in my favorite theatre, North Africa. Part of what I'm suggesting to our readers is that no one (developer) has really got it COMPLETELY RIGHT as to producing a wargame that does both armour and infantry in a fashion that I find both enjoyable and realistic. I am grateful to the developers for getting CMAK published. So far, its been a total joy and I would encourage anyone who was turned off by the infantry play in previous versions of the CM system to give it a try, a system, at least in the desert, where armoured warfare dominates. EZ [ December 09, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by EZPickens: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EZPickens: As I've said before, this a tanker's game.Then you have been wrong before </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZPickens Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Mind if I include this in my sig, Ms kitty? http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de/ EZ BTW: The CMBB Official Strategy Guide has two figures on the cover, both in a TC's hatch. [ December 09, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by EZPickens: Mind if I include this in my sig, Ms kitty? http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de/ EZ BTW: The CMBB Official Strategy Guide has two figures on the cover, both in a TC's hatch. Sure, no problem. It's "Warphead and Lindan's" site. Pretty neat. Picture of me there too. Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I don't mind people having an interest in the Pacific, but suggesting it was more worthy of attention than other theatres, for whatever reason, is just ignorant. Yes, it's worthy of study. There are plenty of other places to do that.I don't think the problem is that people think the PTO is more worthy than other theaters ... it is that BFC has stated that the PTO is unworthy. If BFC states that the PTO is unworthy of doing, then those who want to see a PTO CM have to make it 'worthy' enough to be included or done. That's why you see the 'same old arguments' trotted out. Incidentally, for those who love pure armor battles, I'm sure there are a lot of players who find pure armor battles boring. They are usually over in about ten minutes at most, so perhaps it is an attention span thing . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: ... it is that BFC has stated that the PTO is unworthy. If BFC states that the PTO is unworthy of doing, then those who want to see a PTO CM have to make it 'worthy' enough to be included or done. Au contraire, BFC has stated that they (BFC) are unworthy. They don't want to spend the time doing the research, and I applaud them for that. People urge me sometimes to follow up my books on Canadian Army uniforms with a volume on the RCAF or RCN/RCNVR. Thanks but no thanks - I have no interest in it, and as worthy a subject as it might be - or even lucrative - I wouldn't know where to start to research it, even if I wanted to. To those that don't understand my decision, I have no apology or further explanation. I could probably whip up a half-assed volume on the RCAF. Wouldn't be anything I was proud of, though. I suspect BFC may feel the same way about the Pacific. They certainly took a fair share of heat for "exploiting" the CM I engine to wring the CMAK title out of it. (A view I couldn't disagree with more, frankly, given the solid research that I know for a fact was done on the OBs for this, not to mention the 3D models, sounds, voice acting, et al). No amount of money in the world would convince me to even try to write about the RCAF, so anyone asking me would be wasting their breath. Anyone get the idea it is the same with BFC? I guess some people lack the ability to place themselves in their shoes... I may be proven wrong with the CM II engine - Which would not necessarily be a bad thing. But perhaps the time of some here would be better spent lobbying other game companies - or perhaps starting their own programming project? The Japanese would require very special modelling over and beyond what the current CM engine is capable of. ASL Veteran, you have seen how specially they were treated in our beloved ASL. Anything else just wouldn't be right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by Kitty: Sure, no problem. It's "Warphead and Lindan's" site. Pretty neat. Picture of me there too. Are you the slacker having a snooze on the glacis of what looks to be a Ram APC??!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breakthrough Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by rune: People, You just don't find a brain in the jar just laying around you know. Rune I hope your not knocking yourself out looking in here! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZPickens Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: I hate to disappoint you, ASL Veteran, but much of the fighting in Libya and Egypt, if not "pure-armor," most certainly did revolve around massed formations of AFV's and other mechanized units in an environment where non-motorized infantry were utterly helpless outside of fortifications. I for one think that's why its so interesting. IIRC, a few months back, a lot of posters here were raising hell because they believed that North Africa didn't rate being the focus of the last of the CM series. Were you among them? If so, I salute you for consistency's sake. The scenarios that I've been working on, based on the Tobruk and ATS boadgames, don't last 10 minutes, but neither do they wind on for months, either. And forgive me if this sounds overly pedantic, but neither did the typical battle of the time and place, spread out over several square miles of sand and gravel, that are today as bare of meaning or recognition as an oversized parking lot. Finally, as flawed as infantry play may be in CM, I can still see the value in the parts of the game that do work, and readily, gleefully, embrace them, the same way I embrace CC in spite of its often "goofy" armour play. If this offends the faithful, then at least take solice in knowing that BFC turned three purchases from this heretic, at least one of which he truly enjoys. EZ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawngnome Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Well, this certainly has made tempers flare... let me give my life story!! <--- loves infantry battle <--- dislikes more than a platoon of armor to control <--- is glad PTO is not being done at this time <--- loves all three CM games, even if they aren't perfect <--- realizes no game is perfect because humans are not perfect That said I think infantry combat integrated with armor combat is what makes this game so tense at times. What is better than charging your Pz IV in for a nice blast of canister in the face of that annoying squad stuck in the trench? How dramatic is watching a platoon of infantry run across a field under fire while their friendly AFV targets their attackers and supports them?? I would argue that while armor combat has been done excellently in this game, it only magnifies the spectacular infantry combat. It is entirely too easy to issue a "hunt" command to your tiger and watch him rip T-34's to shreds like little Timmy ripping wrapping paper on the morning of the 25th, but how much more grueling and engaging is it to plot out an infantry strike?? Am I the only one who gets a huge grin on his face when my carefully plan surgical strike with a fresh platoon of Panzergrenadiers into my enemy's flank decimates him and sends him into retreat? Infantry combat.... more difficult, more engaging, more satisfying.... Yet it wouldn't be that great without those pretty tanks.... -Palko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron von Beergut Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Ditto Maj B's comments. No problem with no PTO, but with a unit & terrain editor one could probably do scenarios for PTO/CBI and/or Korea with what we have now. If BF.C doesn't want to get into it, ok, but I don't like some folks perception that since that theater was decided more by carrier battles that it makes the land battles pointless to fight. Or the thought that CM is more of an armor engine than infantry. There are plenty of scenarios with little/no armor to show it a decent infantry game engine. A salute for the games so far. We now have enough to keep us occupied while CM2 develops... BvB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.