Bogdan Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Hello Gentlemen, Just this simple question : why there's no Kingtigers in CMAK ? ...You may answer :"'cause there wasn't any units of that kind in Italy, you dumb !" ...well yes but, please consider the case of Jagtigers in CMBB. No Jagdpanzer VI saw combat in the east during 1944-45 (only on the western front) and the vehicle IS modelled in the game ! So, (and it's the main focus of my modest post), as some designers may, in a near future, plan to create "Ardennes" scenario or "Normandy" battles with the new game (which is more accurate and advanced than CMBO), the presence of this tank might be highly required !! And don't tell me that this panzer would be difficult to include in a patch : it's already modelled ! :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Originally posted by Bogdan: Hello Gentlemen, Just this simple question : why there's no Kingtigers in CMAK ? ...You may answer :"'cause there wasn't any units of that kind in Italy, you dumb !" ...well yes but, please consider the case of Jagtigers in CMBB. No Jagdpanzer VI saw combat in the east during 1944-45 (only on the western front) and the vehicle IS modelled in the game ! So, (and it's the main focus of my modest post), as some designers may, in a near future, plan to create "Ardennes" scenario or "Normandy" battles with the new game (which is more accurate and advanced than CMBO), the presence of this tank might be highly required !! And don't tell me that this panzer would be difficult to include in a patch : it's already modelled ! :mad: I would like to see the King Tiger included as well. There are plenty of scenarios that have already been done for Normandy. I can only imagine that the Bulge will quickly follow. There were not that many King Tigers in the overall scheme of things and there are so many other battles to model that you really won't miss them. EXCEPT that they are "KING TIGERS" and it would be nice to have them. Also, the Jagdtiger did serve on the Eastern front with the 3rd SS Panzer Division for a short period so that argument doesn't hold water. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 The whole question of including units (or not) by strict historical standards has been talked about a lot here. BTS has stated a design philosophy that says, "If it wasn't there at that time, we won't include it." (As for that JgPz VI in CMBB, I just don't know.) But I hope that they will moderate this stance at least a little for the sake of hypothetical match-ups. After all, even though (to make up a possible example) no King Tiger ever stumbled across a British Airborne Engineer Platoon engaged in ferrying Free French infantry across a river with assault boats, there was no "lock" in CMBO that prevented you from concocting such a scenario. The units were in the right theater at the right time, and that was close enough. Because CMAK is the perfect engine for doing Northwestern Europe scenarios *as well as* the Med, at least until CMx2 comes along, I hope that BTS will consider giving a little leeway beyond strict theater boundaries. An "historically unrestricted" mode for scenario designers would be a great addition and would give CMAK more legs in the market. (Word of mouth and reviews would be able to say that the game now simulates *all* of the fighting between Germany, Italy, and the western Allies, at least after Dunkirk.) We know that BTS has limited time and energy for this. But maybe the following steps wouldn't be too much effort for the gains involved...? 1) Add a fully unrestricted mode to the scenario maker so that any unit of any side in the game could be added to a map after its date of first appearance. (No more hunting for just the right month to find paratroopers.) 2) Leave this unrestricted mode *out* of the quick battle generator. This would cut down on completely rampant ahistoricism. 3) In a patch, add at least the most important missing units to CMAK that have already been created for CMBB and CMBO. Older models, even the lower poly-count ones from CMBO, would be fine with everyone I'm sure. Modders could take care of the skins. *If* the ballistic data for a new/old unit's gun is too much to work up, well, we can live without that unit. But at least some of what we'd like to see probably wouldn't be that hard to do. 4) No Maus, no JS-3, no North Koreans or Confederates. 5) All of us send a sincere note of personal thanks to the BTS team for making our wargaming dreams come true! Those who are able, bake them a pie. Or send beer. Humbly Submitted, Martyr 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 i would rather send bfc money for an expansion pack that would address our wishes. that way the "game" stays true to history as they see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I was just wondering about this myself the other day- I quite clearly says on the back of my CMAK cd case, and I quote: "... Are you able to deploy thunderous tanks like Pershing, King Tiger or Firefly? ..." I guess not- neither the King Tiger nor the Pershing can be found! Would like to see them included, especially since it says so on the box! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 junk2drive sez: i would rather send bfc money for an expansion pack that would address our wishes. that way the "game" stays true to history as they see it. I'll be first in line with my money when the next CM comes out! But an expansion pack, with all the new content necessary to justify it, would push back CMx2 quite a bit, and BTS has said they're against that. My modest proposal--and I'm only repeating what others have requested--asks only for a bit of patch and port work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: i would rather send bfc money for an expansion pack that would address our wishes. that way the "game" stays true to history as they see it. I'd pay for some King Tigers and hedgerows also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Hedgerows we have already: "tall hedge" in CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by General Colt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by junk2drive: i would rather send bfc money for an expansion pack that would address our wishes. that way the "game" stays true to history as they see it. I'd pay for some King Tigers and hedgerows also. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Maybe Madmatt will see how much it would take for Charles to give us the KT. Hmmm,.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Don't count on it being introduced into the game now. I don't think we will see new models for AFV's the are already in the game let alone adding more. Even though there are already KT models in the other games we don't know how easy or hard it would be to add that model at this point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by Big Jim: I was just wondering about this myself the other day- I quite clearly says on the back of my CMAK cd case, and I quote: "... Are you able to deploy thunderous tanks like Pershing, King Tiger or Firefly? ..." I guess not- neither the King Tiger nor the Pershing can be found! Would like to see them included, especially since it says so on the box! I hadn't noticed this. On the face of it this would seem to be a case of false advetising, by implication at least. If one advertises a product that allows specific matchups to occur then shouldn't it deliver? Just my bleedin' obvious observation, that's all. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SturmSebber Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Oh please... well, it COULD have been possible for the Japanese to send a battalion to Africa by U-boat to help Adolf .. but did they? No. Should they be modelled because it COULD have happened? NO. If we keep on demanding things like this, there is no end to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 What it said on the box and what we got are two different things, Sturm. I too have been looking for the Pershing and King Tiger and wondered why the ommission. It is only fair to ask for what was promised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerch Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 wouldn't it be a nice feature to have the choice to select all units we want, no matter when they were introduced? on the game set up screen could be a feature "ignore year" and then one could select units from every year one want. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by farmerch: wouldn't it be a nice feature to have the choice to select all units we want, no matter when they were introduced? on the game set up screen could be a feature "ignore year" and then one could select units from every year one want. I'm not sure this feature could be put in the actual game. IMHO, it would ignore months 'if not years) of historicall researches made by the BFC staff just for the player's fantasy. What would be the advantage of having BT7 or Pz38 tanks against late war machines ? Apart from the curiosity to see them blown up in flames, it's a bit difficult for me at this time to imagine the real interest of such a feature. However, I modestly think that it would be nice to add the Kingtiger in the CMAK unit list. Posting that idea here wasn't for opening the "Pandora box" and see another very long thread about "...and why not the Panther II infrared device ?" or "...what about the KV prototype with multiple rocket launcher ( ) ?" It really doesn't interest me to see those museum curiosities engaged in a battle. Then, why not putting Velociraptors and Brontosaurus ? For me, as soon as a vehicle has a REAL operationnal life on the battlefield, it can be integrated on the list of units available. The IS-3, for example, NEVER saw combat in 1945 in Germany. Some sources even mentionned that it wasn't sure the tanks fought in eastern russia against japanese forces. And the IS-3 IS on the CMBB list ! Then, this tanks could easely be erased from the game, it really doesn't bother me ! But... ...Kingtiger SAW combat It had an operationnal life during the war. I know this vehicle was probably never engaged in Italy (I trust in BFC researches about the subject) but was available at this date in other european theaters. Please tell me how many Jagtigers and Sturmtiger were built. Then, how many KT ? Finally, as soon as BFC confirmed that they will never produce a major CMBO upgrade to adjust its details level to the CMBB ones, and, as soon as the company proposed CMAK, they could very easely imagine that the CM community, scenario designers and modders will surelly try to produce Normandy battles or stuff which stayed at a "CMBO level" ! Please ! Then, if the BFC guys really want their game to have a long life (...and if they want to have enough time to program CMX2...), they may have to know that including the KT to the unit list can contribute to [ March 22, 2004, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Bogdan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Well, if Königstiger makes it, then Cromwell MUST make it, too! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwxspoon Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 It was surely a tough call for BFC to decide what, if any, extras would be included and what would not. Given the limited resources of BFC it is reasonable to assume they can either work on these 3 games ad infinitum or htey can move on to other products. Personally, I would rather see a cutting edge tank simulation come out from them in a year or two, rather than have them massage these old games over and over and over. We already know what a good job they will do, imagine how cool it will be when a new engine is in place! As for the advertising on the cd case, I suspect that was added by CDV. jw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 CDV strike again... those cheeky chappies! Jwxspoon has got a point though- the next engine is going to be kick-arse, and I can't wait to see what the fruit of their skunkworks(?) may be. Great scenarios by the way Mr JW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 SturmSebber sez: Oh please... well, it COULD have been possible for the Japanese to send a battalion to Africa by U-boat to help Adolf .. but did they? No. Should they be modelled because it COULD have happened? NO. But no one is asking for anything so outlandish. I guess what some of us hope for (humbly so, as BTS has already given us so much!) is the inclusion of just a little more to make the 44-45 European battles more fully possible in CMAK. People seem to want the King Tiger; I myself am more interested in some of the late war British tanks that didn't make it onto the CMAK CD. In any case, no one expects BTS to pour a lot of time and energy into an update for CMAK now that they've begun work on CMx2. But if they find that bundling a few of the more common late-war AFVs into the 1.02 patch won't set them back too far, we would all be grateful I'm sure. The idea would be to make CMAK more expansive at the lowest cost in BTS' resources. Obviously this is not a demand, or a petition, or a rant. It's just a suggestion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 Ditto the Cromwell - of all the units "missing" from CM:AK (obviously not ACTUALLY missing since they didn't see service), the Cromwells would make the biggest difference for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 Originally posted by Martyr: SturmSebber sez: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Oh please... well, it COULD have been possible for the Japanese to send a battalion to Africa by U-boat to help Adolf .. but did they? No. Should they be modelled because it COULD have happened? NO. But no one is asking for anything so outlandish. I guess what some of us hope for (humbly so, as BTS has already given us so much!) is the inclusion of just a little more to make the 44-45 European battles more fully possible in CMAK. People seem to want the King Tiger; I myself am more interested in some of the late war British tanks that didn't make it onto the CMAK CD. In any case, no one expects BTS to pour a lot of time and energy into an update for CMAK now that they've begun work on CMx2. But if they find that bundling a few of the more common late-war AFVs into the 1.02 patch won't set them back too far, we would all be grateful I'm sure. The idea would be to make CMAK more expansive at the lowest cost in BTS' resources. Obviously this is not a demand, or a petition, or a rant. It's just a suggestion. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Murray Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 The back of the CDV flexpack also says " 800+ types of units: Tanks, Infantry, Artillery, Planes with realistic technical data and camouflage ". This is from the CDV English version that I purchased last month in a game store in here in Toronto. Now I know that planes are included in the CM series ( but only as silohettes ). I've got both BO & BB so I knew what to expect. Some newbie, not knowing CM, might be mislead into thinking that you can actually see them. I don't think that it was a case of deliberate misrepresentation; somebody just didn't proof read the copy before it was printed. Same thing with the King Tiger stuff. It looks as if it was written by someone who's first language isn't English. PS. Bogdan: I read somewhere that the average lifespan of a game nowadays is about 2 years. [ March 22, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Rob Murray ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 If CMAK was expanded it must have an impact on CMBO sales. You would have to have access to the numbers to know how big a factor that might be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I do not recall in any of the patches that BFC has put out for CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK them EVER adding in a new vehicle. Yes you see new polygons to vehicles already on the list but never a totally new vehicle. If they could, the emphasis would probably be more on stuff like getting captured Italian armor into the hands of the Australians. So I'd say the chances of seeing KTs show up in the next patch are about as likely as seeing Imperial Stormtroopers added. Even at 1.5 gigs it looks like the game's still not big enough to be everything for everybody. 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.