panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I'll be honest. I don't like the subject for CMSF. I am not into fictional future conflicts. So in that regard CMSF is dissapointing for me. I don't mind post WWII (although I am a WWII buff), but would have preferred Korea, Nam or Arab-Israeli wars. Maybe even Falklands But Syria 2007 :confused: But after 5 years of enjoyment thanks to BFC, I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. Maybe I will get to like CMSF after a while. Who knows ? I am sure CMSF will be a great game in itself, I trust BFC. They have delivered before So, disappointed, but eager to see CMSF come to life anyway. And ofcourse looking forward very, very much to revisit Normandy in 1944 with the new engine (ah CMBO, those were the days)! How much longer will I have to wait for that ? Doh ! :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 I'll be honest. I don't like the subject for CMSF. I am not into fictional future conflicts. So in that regard CMSF is dissapointing for me. I don't mind post WWII (although I am a WWII buff), but would have preferred Korea, Nam or Arab-Israeli wars. Maybe even Falklands But Syria 2007 :confused: But after 5 years of enjoyment thanks to BFC, I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. Maybe I will get to like CMSF after a while. Who knows ? I am sure CMSF will be a great game in itself, I trust BFC. They have delivered before So, disappointed, but eager to see CMSF come to life anyway. And ofcourse looking forward very, very much to revisit Normandy in 1944 with the new engine (ah CMBO, those were the days)! How much longer will I have to wait for that ? Doh ! :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 I'll be honest. I don't like the subject for CMSF. I am not into fictional future conflicts. So in that regard CMSF is dissapointing for me. I don't mind post WWII (although I am a WWII buff), but would have preferred Korea, Nam or Arab-Israeli wars. Maybe even Falklands But Syria 2007 :confused: But after 5 years of enjoyment thanks to BFC, I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. Maybe I will get to like CMSF after a while. Who knows ? I am sure CMSF will be a great game in itself, I trust BFC. They have delivered before So, disappointed, but eager to see CMSF come to life anyway. And ofcourse looking forward very, very much to revisit Normandy in 1944 with the new engine (ah CMBO, those were the days)! How much longer will I have to wait for that ? Doh ! :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Jesus Christ you guys are all 6 years old. "I am disappointed but I trust BTS". What kind of idiocy is that? I have been just about everywhere the Army can take a man. 19 years hasnt even seemed like a long time. Syria is just another place on a map. Borders and nations really dont mean ****. A Syrian can just as easily kill a man as a Russian, German, Japanese, Korean, or for that matter, an American. In 2007 for all you know Syria could be a legimate area of operations. Hypothetical is a funny word too since obviously most of you guys have never been through any military readiness excercises. THEY ARE ALL HYPOTHETICAL. Every single one of them. Now did any one of you see into the future and see Afghanistan being a country we invaded? Do any of you actually even have any knowledge of to a man how good Afghanis are at soldering? Well sign up and do a few ops and tell me what you think afterwards... And to think that the Syrians arent able to put up enough fight to counter a Stryker Brigade in an urban environment... Technology only helps us fight the battles guys. We fight the battles with sticks and stones if neccessary. We are not so far advanced that we cannot lose to anyone, including the Syrians. And since BTS has proven that they can make a very detailed and accurate representation of the games they have made, whats the crying for? I mean whats the difference in killing Germans in 1944 with a Sherman or Killing Arabs in 2007 with an Abrams? You still have to arrive at the battle and make the right decisions to win in any era of warfare. Every second of a battle is just a series of decisions anyway. Make the right ones and you and your men come home with you. Make the wrong ones and the opposite is true. Doesnt matter if you have all the bullets in the world if you cant make the right choices when the time comes..... -Ray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Jesus Christ you guys are all 6 years old. "I am disappointed but I trust BTS". What kind of idiocy is that? I have been just about everywhere the Army can take a man. 19 years hasnt even seemed like a long time. Syria is just another place on a map. Borders and nations really dont mean ****. A Syrian can just as easily kill a man as a Russian, German, Japanese, Korean, or for that matter, an American. In 2007 for all you know Syria could be a legimate area of operations. Hypothetical is a funny word too since obviously most of you guys have never been through any military readiness excercises. THEY ARE ALL HYPOTHETICAL. Every single one of them. Now did any one of you see into the future and see Afghanistan being a country we invaded? Do any of you actually even have any knowledge of to a man how good Afghanis are at soldering? Well sign up and do a few ops and tell me what you think afterwards... And to think that the Syrians arent able to put up enough fight to counter a Stryker Brigade in an urban environment... Technology only helps us fight the battles guys. We fight the battles with sticks and stones if neccessary. We are not so far advanced that we cannot lose to anyone, including the Syrians. And since BTS has proven that they can make a very detailed and accurate representation of the games they have made, whats the crying for? I mean whats the difference in killing Germans in 1944 with a Sherman or Killing Arabs in 2007 with an Abrams? You still have to arrive at the battle and make the right decisions to win in any era of warfare. Every second of a battle is just a series of decisions anyway. Make the right ones and you and your men come home with you. Make the wrong ones and the opposite is true. Doesnt matter if you have all the bullets in the world if you cant make the right choices when the time comes..... -Ray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Jesus Christ you guys are all 6 years old. "I am disappointed but I trust BTS". What kind of idiocy is that? I have been just about everywhere the Army can take a man. 19 years hasnt even seemed like a long time. Syria is just another place on a map. Borders and nations really dont mean ****. A Syrian can just as easily kill a man as a Russian, German, Japanese, Korean, or for that matter, an American. In 2007 for all you know Syria could be a legimate area of operations. Hypothetical is a funny word too since obviously most of you guys have never been through any military readiness excercises. THEY ARE ALL HYPOTHETICAL. Every single one of them. Now did any one of you see into the future and see Afghanistan being a country we invaded? Do any of you actually even have any knowledge of to a man how good Afghanis are at soldering? Well sign up and do a few ops and tell me what you think afterwards... And to think that the Syrians arent able to put up enough fight to counter a Stryker Brigade in an urban environment... Technology only helps us fight the battles guys. We fight the battles with sticks and stones if neccessary. We are not so far advanced that we cannot lose to anyone, including the Syrians. And since BTS has proven that they can make a very detailed and accurate representation of the games they have made, whats the crying for? I mean whats the difference in killing Germans in 1944 with a Sherman or Killing Arabs in 2007 with an Abrams? You still have to arrive at the battle and make the right decisions to win in any era of warfare. Every second of a battle is just a series of decisions anyway. Make the right ones and you and your men come home with you. Make the wrong ones and the opposite is true. Doesnt matter if you have all the bullets in the world if you cant make the right choices when the time comes..... -Ray 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Take it easy man ! No need for this kind of hefty reaction. Syria 2007 is just not my favorite setting for a game. So what ? Am I entitled to my own preferences ? I like to think so, thank you very much. I have enjoyed BTS product for the last 5 years. They make good stuff. So, I trust that CMSF will be good stuff also. Just not covering my favorite theater (WWII ETO). Am I entitled to say that? I like to think so, thank you very much. Lighten up ! By the way, I was in the army for 4 years. In the rear with the gear. Never fired a shot in anger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Take it easy man ! No need for this kind of hefty reaction. Syria 2007 is just not my favorite setting for a game. So what ? Am I entitled to my own preferences ? I like to think so, thank you very much. I have enjoyed BTS product for the last 5 years. They make good stuff. So, I trust that CMSF will be good stuff also. Just not covering my favorite theater (WWII ETO). Am I entitled to say that? I like to think so, thank you very much. Lighten up ! By the way, I was in the army for 4 years. In the rear with the gear. Never fired a shot in anger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzer mike Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Take it easy man ! No need for this kind of hefty reaction. Syria 2007 is just not my favorite setting for a game. So what ? Am I entitled to my own preferences ? I like to think so, thank you very much. I have enjoyed BTS product for the last 5 years. They make good stuff. So, I trust that CMSF will be good stuff also. Just not covering my favorite theater (WWII ETO). Am I entitled to say that? I like to think so, thank you very much. Lighten up ! By the way, I was in the army for 4 years. In the rear with the gear. Never fired a shot in anger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 What is this "BTS" you are talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 What is this "BTS" you are talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 What is this "BTS" you are talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: What is this "BTS" you are talking about? Big Time Software, n00b. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: What is this "BTS" you are talking about? Big Time Software, n00b. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: What is this "BTS" you are talking about? Big Time Software, n00b. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 BTS was Charles' company prior to the founding of Battlefront. Since there was some name recognition benefit to the name we kept it as the "developer" of Combat Mission. However, we officially dropped it years ago. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 BTS was Charles' company prior to the founding of Battlefront. Since there was some name recognition benefit to the name we kept it as the "developer" of Combat Mission. However, we officially dropped it years ago. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 BTS was Charles' company prior to the founding of Battlefront. Since there was some name recognition benefit to the name we kept it as the "developer" of Combat Mission. However, we officially dropped it years ago. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Hmmm... "BTS, please fix or somefink." "BFC, please fix or somefink." Nope, it's just not the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Hmmm... "BTS, please fix or somefink." "BFC, please fix or somefink." Nope, it's just not the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Hmmm... "BTS, please fix or somefink." "BFC, please fix or somefink." Nope, it's just not the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yep BFC is much better; what can I imagine BTS to stand for when I'm pissed off? OTOH pretending to be posting complaints to some Bloody F*cking C*nt/s just feels sooo much better. :mad: BTW the modern near futrure setting stuff is all fine with me to be sure as long as it means that there is later more CM-WWII and possibly other earlier stuff like Korea, Vietnam and Arab-Israeli conflicts eventually developed on the CMx2 or x3 engine. I'm just really pissed off at the myopically restrictive US Forces only focus as Steve has said even for the 2nd CMx2, WTF! I don't understand how BFI can't see a market incentive to broaden the scope to include a range of major national forces even for CM:SF. I mean I'm pretty fairly certain that the Israeli, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealad (at a stretch), other NATO members, New Europeans such as Poland etc, and also the Russian militaries would also be interested in a modern near future training like simulation modelling their forces. Why does CM:SF have to be limited to just a coalition of the unilateral one and only. Where's an improved resolute UN or a more committed NATO in this hypothetical year 2007? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yep BFC is much better; what can I imagine BTS to stand for when I'm pissed off? OTOH pretending to be posting complaints to some Bloody F*cking C*nt/s just feels sooo much better. :mad: BTW the modern near futrure setting stuff is all fine with me to be sure as long as it means that there is later more CM-WWII and possibly other earlier stuff like Korea, Vietnam and Arab-Israeli conflicts eventually developed on the CMx2 or x3 engine. I'm just really pissed off at the myopically restrictive US Forces only focus as Steve has said even for the 2nd CMx2, WTF! I don't understand how BFI can't see a market incentive to broaden the scope to include a range of major national forces even for CM:SF. I mean I'm pretty fairly certain that the Israeli, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealad (at a stretch), other NATO members, New Europeans such as Poland etc, and also the Russian militaries would also be interested in a modern near future training like simulation modelling their forces. Why does CM:SF have to be limited to just a coalition of the unilateral one and only. Where's an improved resolute UN or a more committed NATO in this hypothetical year 2007? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yep BFC is much better; what can I imagine BTS to stand for when I'm pissed off? OTOH pretending to be posting complaints to some Bloody F*cking C*nt/s just feels sooo much better. :mad: BTW the modern near futrure setting stuff is all fine with me to be sure as long as it means that there is later more CM-WWII and possibly other earlier stuff like Korea, Vietnam and Arab-Israeli conflicts eventually developed on the CMx2 or x3 engine. I'm just really pissed off at the myopically restrictive US Forces only focus as Steve has said even for the 2nd CMx2, WTF! I don't understand how BFI can't see a market incentive to broaden the scope to include a range of major national forces even for CM:SF. I mean I'm pretty fairly certain that the Israeli, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealad (at a stretch), other NATO members, New Europeans such as Poland etc, and also the Russian militaries would also be interested in a modern near future training like simulation modelling their forces. Why does CM:SF have to be limited to just a coalition of the unilateral one and only. Where's an improved resolute UN or a more committed NATO in this hypothetical year 2007? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Be careful Panzer Mike, you are not allowed to state what you think or how you feel. If you do your thread will be locked. I agree with every thing you said, although getting my support on this topic is political death here! 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.