M113 ?

[cool breeze]

Maybe we'll get if if we all say please? Please!

[SgtMuhammed]

You'll get nothing and like it.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Normal Dude,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

If you mean CM:SF, there aren't any supply units of any sort. Humvees are only in the game where relevant to combat units.

Steve </font>

[M1A1TC]

At this point we havent had any additions to CMSF vehicles or buildings in any patches. How about starting with M113?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

Maybe we'll get if if we all say please? Please!

I'm sure if enough people do enough polite persistent pestering, BFC will reconsider and perhaps add the M113 at some point.

Note the recent announcement that they're probably going to add Red airpower at some point in response to the unexpected popularity of Red v. Red scenarios. Enough people expressed a desire, BFC has adjusted their development plans accordingly.

However, I think what's frustrating Steve here is that people are making it sound like BFC is deliberately not putting in the M113, just to spite folks and ram some sort of agenda regarding modern doctrine down their throats.

If time and resources were no object, I'm sure that BFC would love to add the M113 and several dozen other currently unrepresented vehicles to CMSF. MRAPs, LMTVs, AFV recovery vehicles, Tactical Engineering vehicles, on map Mortar Carriers and Paladins. . . it's pretty easy to come up with a very long list of vehicles that might see at least some combat.

But it's not like Steve and Co. are just sitting around, drinking La Fin du Monde in the piney woods of Maine, holding on to the already completed CM:Marines, CM:Tommies, and CM:OtherNATOFolks just to spite us. They're hard at work, creating vehicle models, skins, tweaking game code, etc.

So if the M113 gets added, something else on the schedule has to be nixed, or at the least postponed. You need to think about advocating for the inclusion of the M113 in this context -- what are you willing to live without that's currently on the schedule, so that you can have the M113?

Like I said, I'd love to see it. But I'm not sure what should be dropped, in order to get it. As time goes on, with more modules, the vehicle list will get larger and larger. Maybe someday the M113 will make it in.

Cheers,

YD

[Webwing]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

Maybe we'll get if if we all say please? Please!

Originally posted by M1A1TC:

At this point we havent had any additions to CMSF vehicles or buildings in any patches. How about starting with M113?

M113s are cool. But Steve has said many, many times, that they won't be included.

I may be wrong but asking it in one post after the other won't change anything.

Still, I enjoyed this M113 discussion. Made me look up more info and learn more about this vehicle.

Is this the one nicknamed Gavin?

Ops, sorry, just joking!

-

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by M1A1TC:

At this point we havent had any additions to CMSF vehicles or buildings in any patches. How about starting with M113?

I really doubt we're ever going to see new vehicles or buildings just straight-up added to the CMSF base game, for no charge. That's what modules are; additions of new stuff to the base game. BFC would be undercutting themselves if they started adding new vehicles or other units to the base game for free.

Frankly, I think it's a pretty good deal that we'll continue to get the base game engine code upgrades in the base game, whether you've bought any of the follow-on modules or not. This isn't the way computer games are usually marketed. Usually, to get the upgraded game engine, you have to buy the new game.

But there's no reason why they couldn't include the M113 as a bonus in a module at some point.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

El Hombre ,

There you go, everyone happy. You get to play with M-113s, you get to do symmetric battles with early vietnam-era stuff, and you get to use huge numbers of small super-effective AT teams with excellent communications.

Sure, I'll just get our outsourced Indian sweatshop boys working on that and we'll have it out in no time

Dragon67,

Ibn the scenario editor There is unit beneath the engineer company called, "Supply Platton" that contains 4 Humvees.

Ah... I forgot about that little "platoon". I added that in specifically for a scenario in the Campaign. It's really not a supply unit since it's not based on any TO&E and lacks any sort of dedicated logistics vehicle.

Instead of the Humvees- you could have put M113's in there.

Ah, except the Humvees already were in the game, the M113 isn't. But yes, you are correct that a single TO&E entry like that takes only a few minutes to do.

Well, it is like everything 80% of the users of your game want you just blow off.

No, we give rational counter arguments. Plus, if I were to poll CM customers right now, I bet 80% of them wouldn't say the M113 is the most important thing in the world. Most would say King Tiger

That is why you will lose 80% of your customers when the developer that listens comes out with the next game.

We've heard that argument for 10 years... nobody's stepped up to the plate yet, and we doubt anybody is dumb enough to

We get no on board civilians, no casualty evec, etc.- all in the name of being relevant.

Well, if you want a wargame delivered in 3 years instead of 30, there have to be some choices made about what not to include. As a gamer I'd rather go with what a developer can do instead of a fantasy pie-in-the-sky product that never has a prayer of a chance of being made.

A war game with no water or bridge and then when we get it, it will be included with a future WWII mod (most of your base does not want) you have to purchase...

Holy crap... WW2 is not what most of our fan base wants? Wow... sorry man... you're a bit out of touch with reality. We made CM:SF against the wishes of the majority of our (at the time) existing customers. I think anybody on this Forum for more than a couple of years will back me up on that.

YankeeDog,

However, I think what's frustrating Steve here is that people are making it sound like BFC is deliberately not putting in the M113, just to spite folks and ram some sort of agenda regarding modern doctrine down their throats.

Bingo

Based on YEARS of interaction with our customers, there is a certain segment that move along something like this:

1. Express shock that something isn't in the game.

2. Demand that the egregious error be corrected.

3. Ignore all rational arguments against inclusion.

4. When a rational counter argument can't be produced, start with insults and conspiracy theories to beat us up into adding them.

5. Eventually dispense with any form of rational discourse in favor of insults.

6. Bring it up for years to come and completely mischaracterize the exchange in a way favorable to the "Battlefront never listens to anybody" nonsense.

JasonC's behavior here is a classic example. Note his accusation that we purposefully didn't include the M113 because it would make the Stryker look bad. Which explains the Bradley being in the game, right?

If time and resources were no object, I'm sure that BFC would love to add the M113 and several dozen other currently unrepresented vehicles to CMSF. MRAPs, LMTVs, AFV recovery vehicles, Tactical Engineering vehicles, on map Mortar Carriers and Paladins. . . it's pretty easy to come up with a very long list of vehicles that might see at least some combat.

Yup, completely true.

But it's not like Steve and Co. are just sitting around, drinking La Fin du Monde in the piney woods of Maine, holding on to the already completed CM:Marines, CM:Tommies, and CM:OtherNATOFolks just to spite us. They're hard at work, creating vehicle models, skins, tweaking game code, etc.

Man, it's almost like you've paid attention for the 7 years you've been on this Forum. Bravo

So if the M113 gets added, something else on the schedule has to be nixed, or at the least postponed. You need to think about advocating for the inclusion of the M113 in this context -- what are you willing to live without that's currently on the schedule, so that you can have the M113?

Which would be possible if were making the game for one particular customer. Try getting thousands of wargamers to agree which things to include and which things to leave out... finding a cure for cancer or how to achieve world peace would be easier!

I really doubt we're ever going to see new vehicles or buildings just straight-up added to the CMSF base game, for no charge. That's what modules are; additions of new stuff to the base game. BFC would be undercutting themselves if they started adding new vehicles or other units to the base game for free.

Correct. Adding things comes at a cost to us. Giving away things for free is a great concept for the customer, not so good for a company already catering to a fickle and small group of people.

But there's no reason why they couldn't include the M113 as a bonus in a module at some point.

True and I for one am not saying that we'll NEVER add anything to the base game for free. But customers should not expect it from us. That's not a viable business model for any company.

But let's just say that we will add a single new vehicle to the next patch release. Which one should it be? M1A1TC in this thread suggested the M113, but from his posts in other threads I am sure that he would rather an Abrams with TUSK or a Bradley with ERA.

Life's all about choices. We're no more exempt from this than any of you are at your jobs or daily life. Time and resources are always inadequate to meet one's desires, so the best that can be hoped for is that they are adequate to meet one's needs. In this case, we do not need to have a M113 to have a full up conventional contemporary military simulation. Wants noted, but needs are always more important.

Steve

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

El Hombre ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There you go, everyone happy. You get to play with M-113s, you get to do symmetric battles with early vietnam-era stuff, and you get to use huge numbers of small super-effective AT teams with excellent communications.

Sure, I'll just get our outsourced Indian sweatshop boys working on that and we'll have it out in no time

</font>Gotta get with the times Steve. Outsource to India! I won't be satisfied until I see a 60 minutes report detailing South Asian children working on 3D models in sweatshops until their wrists fall off.

Dragon67,

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, it is like everything 80% of the users of your game want you just blow off.

No, we give rational counter arguments. Plus, if I were to poll CM customers right now, I bet 80% of them wouldn't say the M113 is the most important thing in the world. Most would say King Tiger

</font>Nonsense. It would be the Bren tripod.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But there's no reason why they couldn't include the M113 as a bonus in a module at some point.

True and I for one am not saying that we'll NEVER add anything to the base game for free. But customers should not expect it from us. That's not a viable business model for any company.

But let's just say that we will add a single new vehicle to the next patch release.

</font>Which leads to the inevitable question... how's that next pathc coming along?

[Battlefront.com]

To sum up (again):

CM:SF is a simulator of a conventional attack by US forces into Syria in the near future. COIN Ops, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Atlantis, and all other possible things that can be thought up are not covered by definition.

The M113 is still in service with the US Army, but in a very limited capacity. It is primarily employed by HQ assets that are not supposed to be in the thick of the fighting and medical units in HBCTs. They are also used here and there for other support roles (120mm mortar carrier, for example), but generally they are used for Command and Control purposes beyond the scope of CM:SF.

Is there an argument for the inclusion of the M113? Sure, just like there is an argument to be made for a wide variety of other vehicles. Is this argument so strong that we should drop everything and cater to it? No. I'd add a cargo truck before I added the M113 simply based on the utility game wide.

Will the M113 ever make it into CM:SF? I'll never say never, but it's so unlikely that it probably is effectively never. Far too many higher priority things ahead of it.

The funny thing is that nobody is arguing for us to put in the M9 ACE (armored bull dozer, basically). This is a standard "front line" armored vehicle, which is far more relevant than the M113 from a combat standpoint. However, we have never, and probably will never, simulate the sorts of tasks that the M9 ACE was designed to deal with. That's because either they are outside of CM's scope or because it would involve so much coding for something so narrow that nobody would be happy with the tradeoffs to make it reality.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Nonsense. It would be the Bren tripod.

If I didn't have a sore throat and a head cold right now, I'd have laughed out loud at that. You're going to have to settle for a big grin and a couple of coughs

Steve

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Nonsense. It would be the Bren tripod.

If I didn't have a sore throat and a head cold right now, I'd have laughed out loud at that. You're going to have to settle for a big grin and a couple of coughs

Steve </font>You need to put those threads in a shrine forum or something, read only. A testament to all that is wrong with teh intarwebs.

[JasonC]

The silly person is still operating under the delusion any of us care about his psychotic storyline setting for CMSF.

Of course, we like the game because it doesn't lock us into anything so pedestrian, and we'd like it more, the less it did so. Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Kosovo, cold war central front --- whatever we can get it to do.

Now, of course, as I already stated, what he thinks it worthwhile to put in his game is his call. That the game will be better if it has things like M113s, that isn't his call.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Originally posted by JasonC:

That the game will be better if it has things like M113s, that isn't his call.

No one's disagreeing with you here. The thing is, there are a ton of other things that will also make the game better, and Steve has chosen (not unreasonably in my opinion) to put those in the game first.

Would I like to see M113s in the game? Yes. But I would also like to see Abramses with TUSK, T-80s, Leopard 2s, Red air support, etc. an awful lot more.

And I like the setting Steve has chosen.

[JasonC]

Agreed.

Especially Leopard IIs, T-80s, and Red air.

[Clavicula_Nox]

OKay, I've seen it referenced a hundred times, but what is the deal with the Bren tripod?

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

CNN showed fighting in Lebanon today. And what did I see in one still? The front sprocket and nose of an M113. Interestingly, it was green.

El Hombre,

Interesting idea, but are the Lebanese still running 90mm armed M48s, or are they the M48A5s sporting 105mm guns? I believe the South Vietnamese had the former when they shot the NVA T55s up from such range that the NVA tankers thought they'd hit an antitank minefield, being unable to conceive of taking deadly fire from in excess of double their own combat range.

Regards,

John Kettler

John

Do you have any web links detailing these Vietnam Era tank battles? I'd really like to browse over some of them.....

[Darius359au]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The silly person is still operating under the delusion any of us care about his psychotic storyline setting for CMSF.

And you wonder why Battlefront usually ignores you , "I can't get my way so I'll call them silly and Psychotic"

[ May 12, 2008, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Darius359au ]

[CommC]

YES! the M9 ACE... we want it!!!

these threw up berms on the fly in OIF to great effect.

You could just have the command "create berm" and then draw a line like the artillery targeting line and they would then create the berm... now that would be sweet...

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by CommC:

YES! the M9 ACE... we want it!!!

these threw up berms on the fly in OIF to great effect.

You could just have the command "create berm" and then draw a line like the artillery targeting line and they would then create the berm... now that would be sweet...

Like the engineers did in Sudden Strike ?

[tiny_tanker]

Here's an interesting airforce M-113, note the claymores on the sides. This was supposedly taken in 2008 being used for base defense and QRF. This is not a plug for there inclusion, just a cool picture.

[Dragon67]

//No, we give rational counter arguments. Plus, if I were to poll CM customers right now, I bet 80% of them wouldn't say the M113 is the most important thing in the world. Most would say King Tiger//

For the past several years I have been pretending Tigers were Abrahms in Combat Mission Beyond Overlord... I think I am going to be sick.

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

Here's an interesting airforce M-113, note the claymores on the sides. This was supposedly taken in 2008 being used for base defense and QRF. This is not a plug for there inclusion, just a cool picture.

Claymores... wow, that is just dirty dirty pool. you realize what an accident that is waiting to happen... each of those contain over 700 steel balls.

Interesting because the back blast of a claymore is deadly.

[JasonC]

Darius - I wonder, do I? lol. If this is being ignored...

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The silly person is still operating under the delusion any of us care about his psychotic storyline setting for CMSF.

While I often find your posts insightful and interesting, Jason, I do not think it is strengthening your credibility at all when you presume to speak for the entire group.

I, for one think the CMSF storyline is fun. I like other storylines, too. . . But the Syria hypothetical is fine with me.

None of us (Steve included) have a magic finger on the pulse of the CM-playing community. Best case, we're all making SWAGs is to what the "community consensus" is (if a consensus really exists).

Regards,

YD