Jump to content

the truth about CMSF and this board ;o)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

----

unfortunately BTS closed the "skeptics" thread when indeed skeptics turned up.

so I am unable to continue in that thread and reply to the attacks.

I did not intend to be or see me as a "stryker basher". More like someone wishing to question and learn about something that he is not readily convinced about, also due to the nature of a contemporary vehicle which still undergoes developmental process (some might have recognized that I did concede points that I learned about). Rather I thought an ongoing discussion of this vehicle which lies at the core of CMSF would be an ideal opportunity for BTS to present the game and its protagonist the way they see it (=are going to model it).

But I certainly realize when that is not wanted, and that my questions are rather seen as an unwanted annoyance.

And since I do not want to spoil anyone's fun with all this, I am leaving for now - but not without a smile (see above) ;)

wishing all of you all the best for CMSF

sincerely

M.Hofbauer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I still do not get is why I should give a poo whether the Stryker is a good vehicle or not?! It is obviously part of the US army and, therefore, enters the game, no?

What I am interested in is the next-gen Combat Mission game, which (whether I like it or not) plays in Syria in 2007.

If the Stryker is a bad vehicle, the better, because:

(a) it increases the challenge for the US player.

(B) it gives the Syrian player at least some chance to destroy something.

Should you decide to stop posting here: all the best to you, too. I enjoyed your postings in the past more than the recent ones, but this does not devalue the former.

With best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually I think the reason for closing the skeptics thread because it nad become more about Scotland than Syria.

As one of the people responsible for that I'd like first, to apologies to the rest of you, and secondly state that I don't have a problem with it being closed for that reason.

By and large if I open a topic that interests me and find that it's about something completely different I tend to get ticked off.

Claiming it was closed because of a fear of critcism of Stryker is bordering on the paranoid I am afraid.

Great captions and cut and paste though, If I didn't have a life, I'd do things like that too.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Well actually I think the reason for closing the skeptics thread because it nad become more about Scotland than Syria.

Hmm... now that you bring that on the table, I'd be very much interested in playing a British Civil War, or Scottish Uprising, or Braveheart 2007 type game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'd like it to be publicly noticed that I, and ONLY I, was singled out by M Hofbauer in his post. Indeed, he didn't even mention himself. Thus, if anyone copies it and posts it elsewhere, I will be the one who basks in all the reflected glory.

To M Hofbauer: thank you. I'd also like to congratulate you on posting something with no egregious mis-spellings which is critical, nay, inflammatory, on so many levels.

Thanks for a bringing a smile to my face.

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

What I still do not get is why I should give a poo whether the Stryker is a good vehicle or not?! It is obviously part of the US army and, therefore, enters the game, no?

What I am interested in is the next-gen Combat Mission game, which (whether I like it or not) plays in Syria in 2007.

If the Stryker is a bad vehicle, the better, because:

(a) it increases the challenge for the US player.

(B) it gives the Syrian player at least some chance to destroy something.

Should you decide to stop posting here: all the best to you, too. I enjoyed your postings in the past more than the recent ones, but this does not devalue the former.

With best regards,

Thomm

I can't tell if you are a sychophant or a brainless diehard supporter. Please identify yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryker sucks, new game topic is pro-USA rah rah rah crap, yadda yadda, Steve is a tyrant, mean old BFC didn't make a game with Nazi's in it, blah blah
That was tres nice - thanks for the laugh...

I can't say I disagree, can't say I wouldn't prefer a game set in WWII, can't say I wouldn't prefer a world that didn't have a WWII or a GWB, but who cares? I'm not on a band wagon. My political views are my own, and not for sharing with people whom I know would attack me for them. I believe CM:SF will be a decent game and a good warm up for the upcoming WWII title. If that makes me a suck up or a sheep, then dammit, get me a garden hose and a golf ball, cause I'm a goin to town baby!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by DASman:

Yeah, Mike, just got a nice new contract on GIC, I'm laughing all the way to the bank....

E

Wow, if that doesn't illustrate the core differences in motivations between why we make games and why he does, nothing will...

Madmatt

p.s. Anyway, my checks are direct deposited so I do all my laughing right here at my desk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...