M113 ?

[JonS]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

... airforce M-113 ...

typical A/F - windows and aircon on their AFVs.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

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

Back in the CMBO days research turned up the fact that the British Bren gun was issued a tripod. The problem was no one could find anything that showed that they were ever actually used. The result was a raging debate about remaining true to the doctrinal description vs being true to what actually appeared on the battlefield.

It has morphed into a running joke and strange sightings of the infernal things occasionally pop up in the strangest places. Kind of like PETA.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Darius359au:

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

To be honest, you actually do get used to it after a while. Just wait until WW2 rolls around, we will be anti-german or worse for leaving out someone's pet steam roller

Even if we forget the setting for CMSF for a moment, the fact of the matter is that it is very unlikely that the US military will again use the M113 in a combat role in any conventional conflict. As such its a low priority to add it to the TOE of the US military. If the time comes when we release a module representing a nation or time frame that does make its inclusion warranted, then of course it would be.

Dan

[ May 12, 2008, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

... airforce M-113 ...

typical A/F - windows and aircon on their AFVs. </font>

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

... airforce M-113 ...

typical A/F - windows and aircon on their AFVs. </font>Hopefully one side of the interior is a fully stocked bar!

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

... airforce M-113 ...

typical A/F - windows and aircon on their AFVs. </font>

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

... airforce M-113 ...

typical A/F - windows and aircon on their AFVs. </font>

[M1A1TC]

Steve:

"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."

Very true, as I said, Id rather see those then M113 (just another "battlefield taxi")

[ChrisND]

Maybe I should invite Sparky over here for some expert commentary...

[Battlefront.com]

Normal Dude,

Maybe I should invite Sparky over here for some expert commentary

You've done QUITE ENOUGH with the Bren Tripod reference

To restate... we have never, and will never, build a virtual sandbox for people to recreate any theater of their choosing. We always pick the theater and we expand it only as it makes to us to do so. It's called a "business decision", which is often an alien concept to gamers. Which is why so few gamers who turn into developers actually make it past the white paper stage before realizing that being a gamer is a lot more fun.

Dragon67,

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.

Which is why you should retract your comment about it being a bad idea to ignore complaining customers sometimes. Because if we caved into the squeaky wheel types as you said we should, then you'd still be pretending the Tigers are Abrams

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

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

Back in the CMBO days research turned up the fact that the British Bren gun was issued a tripod. The problem was no one could find anything that showed that they were ever actually used. The result was a raging debate about remaining true to the doctrinal description vs being true to what actually appeared on the battlefield.

It has morphed into a running joke and strange sightings of the infernal things occasionally pop up in the strangest places. Kind of like PETA. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

I wrote this:

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.

And then you replied with:

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

Looks like you've moved from Stage 4 to Stage 5. You can linger on Stage 5 a little longer, but since you've proved your point maybe you should just go onto Stage 6 by unilaterally declaring victory in this discussion?

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.

Sure, and I don't disagree with this concept. But someone has to pay for it. If we do the mix of forces in Lebanon, that would be a Module dedicated to it. And that Module would come at the expense of doing something else. Because of that we have to be careful about what we do because by definition it dictates what we can not do. Yeah I know... it's amazing to think that we actually want to get paid for what we do, but it is true.

CM has never been, and never will be, a "sandbox" game where people can do whatever the heck they can dream up. There have to be boundaries because we have constraints of time and resources that do not lend themselves to "sandbox" gaming. Even CMBB, with its huge array of stuff and features, had a lot of stuff "missing". Couldn't battle the Soviets against the Japanese, for example, or do a fictional confrontation with the US in Germany.

CMx2 follows a similar philosophy. You were all told that Syria is the CM:SF setting and that is all it would ever be. I've been saying that since the day we announced the setting. At some point we will move out of the Syrian setting, but when we do so it won't be a $25 Module.

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.

Yup to the first statement, and a puzzled look for the second one. Of course we don't decide what is perceived as fun by any individual. That's up to the individual. As I said to Dragon67, if we made our decisions based on majority rule the CM:SF crowd would probably put a dozen different vehicles ahead of the M113. ZSU-23 would probably beat it out. If we put the same question to the bulk of the CMx1 guys who hate CM:SF, their vote would be stop work on the Marines Module, cease work on other CM:SF related projects, go immediately to work getting Tigers into the game, and never speak of anything more recent than perhaps a IS-III ever again.

Remember, it's not wise to argue that we should do what the customer wants just because he wants it. Because often times the one complaining the loudest actually has the weakest voice.

Steve

[El Hombre]

For the record my suggestion of "expanding" CMSF to the Lebanon setting was some sort of a localized joke (local both in time and space) considering I was sleeping to the lullabies of RPGs a couple of days ago.

Anyway... I fully agree with Steve that the M113 isn't going to change anything on the battlefield, as opposed to the Shilka which is incredibly dangerous in urban setting. So yeah, M113 or ZSU-23? ZSU-23 fer shure. And then one could argue about a dozen other things in the same way.

I'm just happy playing a game as designed and that's about that. Now if only we could get a Red platoon to surrender instead of fight to the last man even when surrounded by 2 bradleys, 1 Abrams and 4 infantry platoons...

[Battlefront.com]

Clavicula_Nox ,

That's easily the most ridiculous thing I'v ever heard.

Really? What kind of SGT are you? I mean, you've had 2nd LTs give you orders before, right

Steve

(apologies to the 2LTs out there. Everybody knows that you exist to interface with NCOs because everybody higher feels they don't get paid enough to deal with them )

(apologies to NCOs out there. Everybody knows without you nothing would get done)

(apologies to mid level officers. Everybody knows without you the only that would get done would be drinking, fighting, swearing, gambling, etc. Of course the NCOs would make sure it was done well, but...)

(hey... I can just keep on going like this, can't I? Must be the NyQuil kicking in).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the words of reason El Hombre. Sorry you aren't listening to the harmless peepers (aka horny frogs) at night like I am instead of RPGs like you are. Though if you ever had a pond right next to your house you'd probably think the RPGs were easier to sleep through

Steve

[ChrisND]

Edit: Oops

[El Hombre]

Steve, I said lullabies, right? Ponds are scary.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

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

Back in the CMBO days research turned up the fact that the British Bren gun was issued a tripod. The problem was no one could find anything that showed that they were ever actually used. The result was a raging debate about remaining true to the doctrinal description vs being true to what actually appeared on the battlefield.

It has morphed into a running joke and strange sightings of the infernal things occasionally pop up in the strangest places. Kind of like PETA. </font>

[JasonC]

"a "sandbox" game where people can do whatever the heck they can dream up."

Too late for that little brainstorm, I'm afraid. There were whole Pacific and early war mods of CMx1. I did Nam scenarios, and used the editor for 10x scale campaigns. Now we have Spetnaz and UNMovec mods for Kosovo, red on red Chechnya fights, etc. Gulf war I scenarios were among the first to be made. You simply aren't in charge of what CM users do with CM games. Which vehicle you put in, of course your call, stated three times. That people want Leopard IIs should tell you they aren't exactly fully invested in any Syrian storyline, and that it has essentially nothing to do with the game's selling points.

No doubt avoiding the possible messiness of an Iraq setting or the contentiousness of an Iran one, partly motivated the choice. Perhaps I should call it a "fantasy" setting, but then there aren't any ogres. The US isn't going to invade Syria. "Cool" imaginary wars that are not needed and won't happen that would kill tens of thousands, it might be still a stretch to call psychotic, but they certainly aren't reality. Thankfully gamers needn't worry about such things, and we can do with our own silicon whatever we like.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Clavicula_Nox ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's easily the most ridiculous thing I'v ever heard.

Really? What kind of SGT are you? I mean, you've had 2nd LTs give you orders before, right

Steve

(apologies to the 2LTs out there. Everybody knows that you exist to interface with NCOs because everybody higher feels they don't get paid enough to deal with them )

(apologies to NCOs out there. Everybody knows without you nothing would get done)

(apologies to mid level officers. Everybody knows without you the only that would get done would be drinking, fighting, swearing, gambling, etc. Of course the NCOs would make sure it was done well, but...)

(hey... I can just keep on going like this, can't I? Must be the NyQuil kicking in).

Steve </font>

[birdstrike]

Just a notion on the Humvee supply platoons:

would it be possible to add a similar supply platoon to the TO&E for the MTVR trucks in the marines module? Just something like 4 trucks without troops, plain and simple? Would be great to use for scenario designers for convoys and such.

[SgtMuhammed]

"And the argument about a Bren tripod still beats that."

Well it was a symbolic thing that encapsulated the metaphysical nature of..... you're right, it was pretty stupid.

[Dirtweasle]

Steve, I don't have a dog in this one but I do kind of wonder just out of curiously how difficult it is to add a vehicle type. I thought the new game system made it easy to add stuff. So could you describe how many hours it takes to add a vehicle? 4 or five? 10 - 20? 120?

[Sequoia]

IIRC it's easier to add the vehicle to the engine but the 3-d modeling takes longer and is more difficult. Steve said he did many CMBO models but couldn't touch a cmx-2 model.

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

Too late for that little brainstorm, I'm afraid. There were whole Pacific and early war mods of CMx1. I did Nam scenarios, and used the editor for 10x scale campaigns. Now we have Spetnaz and UNMovec mods for Kosovo, red on red Chechnya fights, etc. Gulf war I scenarios were among the first to be made. You simply aren't in charge of what CM users do with CM games.

Sure we are. Changing around some BMPs doesn't a game make. If it were that simple, then we would have done it. And you know this as well, otherwise you wouldn't be going on and on and on about the horrible people we are for not putting in M113s. If you were right, you'd just put it in yourself, wouldn't you?

Which vehicle you put in, of course your call, stated three times. That people want Leopard IIs should tell you they aren't exactly fully invested in any Syrian storyline, and that it has essentially nothing to do with the game's selling points.

More faulty logic. By this measure then CMBO suffered from the same problem based on the number of people complaining about the lack of Funnies, no Normandy amphibious assaults, no gliders, no paras dangling in the sky, no E-100s, so on and so forth. This gets us back to the last discussion we had about Grogs inherently never being happy with what they have, rather than there being some inherent defect in the product itself. It also indicates that given any number of people there are more ideas of what we can do with the game than we could possibly do in our lifetime.

No doubt avoiding the possible messiness of an Iraq setting or the contentiousness of an Iran one, partly motivated the choice.

Not really. The reason was that we didn't have about a year to add all the stuff that it would take to simulate either one of those settings correctly. For Iraq it would mean simulating COIN ops specifically, which only has some overlap with conventional ops. Iran required us to almost double the vehicle list and to research completely different TO&E. Same logic applies to Lebanon, Cold War, 6 Day's War, or any other number of things. If all we did was change some BMPs for the graphics we'd take a royal beating for it. Probably with you in the lead

Thankfully gamers needn't worry about such things, and we can do with our own silicon whatever we like.

If that were true, then why are you here in this thread going back and forth between Stages 4 and 5?

Steve